From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 00:07:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19504 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:34 +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 1380JG-000CI1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:54:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:27:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim References: <003701bfe235$49db0de0$8c7b37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <003701bfe235$49db0de0$8c7b37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >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. That is why my first instinct in this sort of case is to rule against claimer. If he really had not forgotten the trump why not mention it? -- 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 Sat Jul 1 00:31:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:49 +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 WAA19503 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:34 +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 1380JB-000IxA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:54:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:19:51 +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> <000b01bfe233$bff9eca0$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000b01bfe233$bff9eca0$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >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? It often is in Porthcawl! -- 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 Sat Jul 1 00:49:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 00:49:09 +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 AAA19944 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 00:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by MIDNTPROD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:51:18 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF095B@MIDNTPROD03> From: John Nichols To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Not yet a penalty card? Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:51:17 -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: Tony Musgrove [mailto:ardelm@ozemail.com.au] > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 2:10 AM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Not yet a penalty card? > > > > 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) > The diamond King becomes a penalty card immediately. However, law 50D1 states (in part) "The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity." Thus the diamond King may not be lead because the "don't lead a diamond" lead penalty is still in effect and takes precedence. West may not lead the diamond King until after losing the lead. Once she loses the lead she must play it at the first legal opportunity. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 01:20:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:49 +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 WAA19509 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:37 +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 1380JH-000IxB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:54:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:40:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Alert? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk LHO You RHO CHO 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H response to 1NT is not. [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? [2] Do you complete the transfer? Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The bidding is the same. [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? [4] Do you complete the transfer? --------- Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is ambiguous and should be re-written. -- 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 Sat Jul 1 01:33:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:33:03 +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 BAA20059 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:32:56 +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 LAA15444 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006301533.LAA15444@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: One board - two different problems (fwd) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000b01bfe233$bff9eca0$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <003001bfe090$880b0800$bf55fd3e@vnmvhhid> <000b01bfe233$bff9eca0$0406ff3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:33:32 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 30 June 2000 at 2:37, "anne_jones" wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >> 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? >> Right. For that line, you owe me part of a drink next time I'm in England. >And the weather was partly raining? >> Oh, come on, Anne, it was my British relatives (mother, precisiely) who taught me the term "Sunshowers". People around here look at me funny when I use it - until they're caught in one (happens about once a year in most parts of Canada on which rain actually falls). Still working on that straight face... Michael. -- Michael Farebrother - "Chief assistant to the Assistant Chief" blml@farebrother.cx, with apologies to F&S&The Reluctant Cannibal's Father From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 01:43:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:50 +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 WAA19502 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1380JA-000IxB-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:54:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:18:35 +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 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andras wrote: >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. But, but, but .... If people have no agreement they do not have to be very good players to say "No agreement"!!!!! .... and if they tell a lie [even with good motives] that is **definitely** MI even if they are tourists, beginners, or men from Mars. We may *deal* with people differently dependent on their abilities and experience. We may say there is no damage, or the opponents should protect themselves, but .... .... if they have no agreement then an answer that says they have an agreement is MI! -- 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 Sat Jul 1 01:45:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:45:13 +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 BAA20096 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:45:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA03025 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21750 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:44:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006301544.LAA21750@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: David Stevenson > Well, the subject suggests that the US interpretation is not what is > required. I've had a new thought on this subject. We need the UK definition of LA, but we also need the UK interpretation of "suggested over another." John later told us that the UI was not a hesitation but rather a question about the opening bid, something like "Is that weak?" In isolation, such a question would tend to suggest values, i.e. not a flat zero count, but the opening was a skip bid. Isn't the next player supposed to study his hand as if considering acting? And isn't making sure of the opening range (which might well be strong in the UK) part of the act? In other words, mightn't (shouldn't?) the player do the very same even if holding the flat zero count? Now I grant that the question wasn't phrased in the best way, and it would have been better to look at the CC instead of asking at all, but does asking _in this situation_ really suggest values? Or is it just the normal action required in order to pretend to be considering something other than pass? I guess you really had to be there, and you certainly have to know the local customs, but it seems a reasonable question. Personally, I'd rather impose UI restrictions when a player _fails_ to honor the skip bid procedure, either by passing instantly or by obvious disinterest. Showing a bit of interest (not too much, mind you), regardless of the hand, seems consistent with the spirit of the skip bid procedure. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 01:56:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:56:46 +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 BAA20127 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:56:38 +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 LAA15992 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006301557.LAA15992@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:57:14 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 30 June 2000 at 13:23, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >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. > Here, they know it's a gross violation of the Law, because we are the locus of nascence of what I prefer to call "Very Low Tolerance". That doesn't stop them... >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. I've done that: "Director please! Yes, I've just learned that West has a singleton in on board , because South just decided to teach his opponents about hitching at a loud enough volume to ensure that all of his future opponents know he's unethical at best. This has 'interfered in my enjoyment of the game'." Or the one at the regional I'm going back to next week: "Excuse me, Director, but I know what contract to play on every board for the next three rounds, and how to play them, because the player in my seat from Pair 8 has chosen to postmortem at his partner loud enough to drown out my partner's Alerts. Sorry I took so long to inform you - I thought it was just a one-time thing." I hope he got a PP equal to the 10% they had to give each pair capable of hearing him for each board that was unplaytable, but I don't think that happened... And here's one for the teaching guide: "Another reason not to yell at partner about what she did: you could be wrong in your analysis, and nothing's more embarrassing..." Thinks - I wonder if B.A. has worked out *yet* that I opened 1NT with a 6-card club suit... Michael. -- Michael Farebrother - Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief. blml@farebrother.cx, w/thanks to F&S&The Reluctant Cannibal's Father. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 02:16:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:16:53 +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 CAA20358 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:16:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e5UGBEm14997 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:11:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200006301611.e5UGBEm14997@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Alert? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:11:14 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 30, 2000 12:40:44 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 David Stevenson writes: > > > LHO Y ou RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! I like it. Did this really happen? > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? No. > [2] Do you complete the transfer? No. > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? No. > [4] Do you complete the transfer? No. In all cases we have an agreement as to what 2H is meant to mean. Partner's failure to alert is UI. If the point is that you know he probably has Spades, I agree. Blech! What I seem to be saying is that you should use UI to put yourself in an unfavorable position. Gets worse. At some point you have to point out the failure to alert. And if you end up playing the hand (perhaps in NT), the probability is that informing them of the failure to alert will probably damage them. 3-3 in the minors won't be expected will it? And if the auction ends here, won't the Opps and the director be amused when you first point out partner's failure to alert (director untangles this fairly routinely) and then you show up with your strong NT. Maybe it would be pragmatic to "continue to forget" that your 1NT was supposed to be for the minors. Goes against my sense of what's ethical and is clearly using UI to advantage. I'm confident that at this point we're in a situation where the only scores we keep are bad ones. After all, we've got -- at minimum -- UI and MI (in the form of a failure to alert) I don't see anything under the Laws that suggests a PP as long as you don't complete the transfer. I do hope to catch a director with a sense of humor. > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I > shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers > without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked > about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the > authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is > ambiguous and should be re-written. > -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 02:20:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:19:22 +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 CAA20379 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:19:13 +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 MAA19598; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:18:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:14:20 -0400 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Alert? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM +0100 6/30/00, David Stevenson wrote: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? >[2] Do you complete the transfer? You have UI from partner's failure to alert; this did not wake you up to your own misbid. Your agreement is that 2H is natural here, and therefore you do not alert it. The UI demonstrably suggests that partner has spades, and therefore, you must pass. > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? >[4] Do you complete the transfer? Now you have different UI, that you have misbid. You do not alert 2H because by your agreement it is not a transfer, and you do bid 2S because that is what you would have done had you not heard the alert. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 02:36:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:45 +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 WAA19501 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:54:32 +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 1380JE-000CI0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:25:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard >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. An alternative approach was to speak to Player A privately and point out the desirability of him approaching the TD. -- 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 Sat Jul 1 02:39:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:39:16 +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 CAA20452 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:39:08 +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 MAA25493; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:38:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001201bfdfd3$c2dfbec0$a754fd3e@vnmvhhid> References: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:36:08 -0400 To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA20453 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:05 AM +0100 6/27/00, anne_jones wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" >> 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 canapÈ 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 >Defender is entitled to her alert. If she could not rely on an alert she may >have >taken more interest in the CC. This seems very close to one of Kaplan's own examples. N-S are playing Kaplan-Sheinwold against expert opposition, and the auction goes 1S-3H-3S-4S. 3S exposes a psychic opening, and E-W are damaged because they are unaware of this and there was no alert. N-S claim that E-W had commented on the system and should know about the controlled psychics. Kaplan's comment is that even experts cannot be expected to know all the details of another system. Unless Kaplan and Sheinwold are the E-W pair, a score adjustment is in order. The ruling is the same here. I'm not sure about Blue Club, but I know enough different "standard" versions of Precision that I refuse to play Precision with a pick-up partner, and I know a lot of players who play an unusual treatment which they believe is "standard" because that is the way they learned it. Experts' responsibility to protect themselves does not extend to sequences on which they would rarely have reason to ask questions. Menawhile, declarer's statements indicate that she has violated L75D2, requiring her to correct partner's failure to alert, and at this level, she should be aware of her responsibility. It appears from the comments that the violation of L75D2 was deliberate, as she thought the opponents didn't need the correction. (I would say the minimum required under L75D2 is to inform the opponents. The Law requires calling the TD, but in practice, a simple, "this bid should have been alerted, and this is what it meant" when damage in the auction is unlikely greatly reduces the number of TD calls.) >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. A stiff PP for a deliberate breach of the proprieties is in order here. I don't know the player, but other discussion on this thread indicates that the player was known for this type of behavior, and a penalty of 3VP's (equivalent to a full board?) may change her attitude. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 02:49:18 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:49:18 +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 CAA20503 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:49:10 +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 JAA04937; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:45:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200006301645.JAA04937@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Alert? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:40:44 PDT." Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:45:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [2] Do you complete the transfer? [2]: No, I wait until LHO makes a call. The rest of my response assumes that LHO passes. > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [4] Do you complete the transfer? [1] and [3]: no. You're required to tell the opponents about your system, and your system is that 2H is natural. Whether partner alerted 1NT is irrelevant to this answer. (If partner failed to alert, your failure to alert could temporarily confuse the opponents, but when the failure to alert 1NT is corrected as provided in L75D2, any possible damage will be assessed at that time.) [4]: yes. Partner's alert, which wakes you up to the fact that you've forgotten your system, is UI to you. So you must treat 2H as a transfer over a strong notrump, and complete it. (Just to make the follow-up problems more interesting, I would complete the transfer by bidding 2NT with my regular partners, which shows a square hand, four-card support, and a non-minimum. Or if I felt my hand was a minimum, I'd bid 3S. 2S would deny 4 spades in those partnerships' methods.) [2]: no. Here, partner's failure to alert, indicating that he forgot your system, is UI. Yes, you forgot your system too, but you've remembered it now. Basically, you know your partner has spades, but that information is UI to you, and you have to pretend your partner has hearts, and avoid any call suggested by this knowledge. Given that you've misbid also, I believe this means that you must not either (1) bid spades, or (2) make any other call that would show spade support over a strong notrump and a transfer. In my regular partnerships, I believe this mean I'm prohibited from bidding 3H, even though this might seem like a sensible call if I didn't have any UI and knew that partner had hearts. In our methods, 3H would show 4-card spade support and a doubleton heart, so I think this call would be suggested over other logical alternatives (such as pass and 4H) by the UI that partner has spades. -- Adam > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I > shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers > without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked > about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the > authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is > ambiguous and should be re-written. > > > -- > 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 Sat Jul 1 02:55:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:55:53 +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 CAA20538 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 52927 invoked for bounce); 30 Jun 2000 16:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.184) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 30 Jun 2000 16:55:30 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfe2b4$2aba3420$b82a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200006292244.SAA14753@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:56:29 +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 Steve Willner played with 12 card hands: > > 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. There is another card hidden somewhere, Steve ;-). I don't think 4H is fine opposite xxxx KJxx Kxx xx or xxxx KJxx Kxx xxx. Even opposite Qxx KJxx Kxxx Jx 4H plus both red suits splitting 4H will go down on a trump lead. Make it xxx Kxxx KJx Qxx and 4H is very bad. xxx AKTx KJx Kxx would double 2S. > (And I could easily have made the hand better!) Opponents are not bidding like crazy at unfavourable at IMPs. > Also, final contracts of 3Sx, 3NT, and 4m > are possible, not just 4H. 3Sx looks very dangerous and might easily make. 3NT will practically never make. 4m down one or two when 3S makes or 4m= when 3S is down one is great at pairs but only a minor plus at IMPs. We might also get in major trouble if partner decides to try 4H on a 3 card suit. All in all, doubling 3S is still a fine bid, but I do consider pass a logical alternative. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 03:27:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:08:26 +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 CAA20324 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:08:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1383Kj-0009Sr-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:08:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:06:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim References: <003701bfe235$49db0de0$8c7b37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Wayne Burrows wrote: >>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. > > That is why my first instinct in this sort of case is to rule against >claimer. If he really had not forgotten the trump why not mention it? > I have to say that I think Laval has apparently been rather generous to his claimer here - I always start by asking declarer as soon as I can what has happened in trumps (often having to shut up dummy :)) - answers to this question may convince me that declarer was aware of the outstanding trump (or more often in my experience) or leave me thinking that he probably had overlooked it. It's such an easy claim - "ruff high and draw trumps" that my first instincts are with David and I might allow declarer the opportunity of convincing an appeal committee that he can count. (It's not so long ago in my experience that an international trialist failed to convince an AC in such a situation because he didn't really seem that sure how many trumps he'd started with or perhaps how many there were in the pack) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 03:52:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:52:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f254.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA20695 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:52:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 54154 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jun 2000 17:51:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000630175152.54153.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:51:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: humor (no laws) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:51:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don't see references to bridge in the comics much these days. http://www.kingfeatures.com/comics/blondie/ check out June 16th. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 04:20:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:06:53 +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 DAA20568 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:06:41 +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 KAA05202; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:02:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200006301702.KAA05202@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Repeat of 50D2 options? Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:02:56 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. (1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the suit to be led at the next trick? (2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 04:29:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:19:50 +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 CAA20389 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:19:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04524; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:16:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200006301616.JAA04524@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Not yet a penalty card? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:09:39 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000630170939.00820ec0@ozemail.com.au> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:16:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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. 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? I think the revoke laws apply. Law 61A says: Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke. It's clear that if declarer requires a particular suit, and the defender fails to lead that suit when able, it's a revoke by Law 61A, and the revoke laws apply. (One thing to note is that the revoke laws do *not* give declarer the option to accept the lead.) I believe the law also applies if a defender is under the requirement to lead one of three [or two] suits, and the defender violates this requirement. Law 61A says "a card or suit", and it's not completely clear what the authors intended by this wording (especially when the failure to play a specific penalty card is covered by a different law, L52). But I think that it *is* intended to cover any situation where there's a lead penalty that is violated when the defender is able to comply with it. With the possible exception of L64B2, the revoke laws are written in a way so that they work just as well when a player is required to lead one of two or three suits as when a player is required to lead or play a specific suit. So I'd apply the revoke laws. This means that I don't give declarer the option of accepting the lead. Fortunately, you were still at the table to point out the problem, so that Law 62 applies, and the revoke must be corrected. The player must lead a non-diamond card (Law 62B says "follows suit", but this should be interpreted to mean "plays a card that complies with the lead penalty" in this case). Law 62B1 says the diamond king becomes a penalty card. This means that, to quote John Nichols' response: # The diamond King becomes a penalty card immediately. However, law # 50D1 states (in part) "The obligation to follow suit, or to comply # with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to # play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left # face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity." # Thus the diamond King may not be lead because the "don't lead a # diamond" lead penalty is still in effect and takes precedence. West # may not lead the diamond King until after losing the lead. Once she # loses the lead she must play it at the first legal opportunity. Plus, if East gains the lead, declarer has options given by L50D2 (including the option to prohibit a diamond lead as long as East retains the lead, which you will have to explain VERY CAREFULLY unless you want the whole debacle to be repeated). If the TD is no longer at the table when a defender violates a lead prohibition, and nobody catches the error, it's possible that the laws on established revokes would apply. (Yes, I know that the TD should stay at the table until the penalty is satisfied.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 04:30:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA20866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 04:30:29 +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 EAA20861 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 04:30:21 +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 OAA19865 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What's right - a hesitation ruling Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:30:57 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MPs, strong sectional field, average pairs (ok, I believe E-W to be significantly above average but we^H^Hthey suck at matchpoints): When arriving at the table, N is telling S about the poor behaviour of E previous round (who had hemmed and hawed, and touched several bidding cards, before making a decision on the last board). Warning: not rotated for my convenience. North Deals 4 E-W Vul J73 T76432 W N E S AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P A8 6H AP Q9 QJ975 1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. 2) regulation 10ish second pause. 3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. 4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. 5) Director called at this point. 6) 1430 for hearts. The TD is called and it is explained that East has paused significantly before all of his bids. No disagreement is given, but E points out that this first pause was no more than the 10 seconds required by the skip bid, which is not challenged. TD proceeds to explain that "He has a right to think; but it's ok as long as he bids." "Yes, W has UI, and he mustn't use it." No FLB is brought out, no Laws are cited or read. As I^HEast thought that it was possible for W to have used UI, he called TD back after the hand to check. N didn't think he was damaged, but E thought it was close enough to want a TD ruling. The TD did not choose to adjust - 6H made on slight misdefence (though I expect I would have got it right anyway). Questions: 1) If you had been the TD called at (5), what would have been your spiel? I am pretty certain that the one we got was less than optimal, as it focussed almost completely on the hesitator, not on partner. 2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone consider that the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? What does the hesitation after 4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going through my mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? 3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? If you had been called on possible MI, what would you tried to find out to decide MI or psych? Should I report it to give evidence for possible CPU ruling later (I don't like the idea that this was anything but a psyche, but I'm afraid that investigation would show evidence that this was not "gross misdescription" based on partnership experience). I am not accusing him of being unethical - a 3D psych at those colours would occur to me, too; but there are definately those who are, at best, deliberately vague about their preemptive agreements around here. 4) Maybe I shouldn't have called the director back after the hand - it made things a little (more) uncomfortable, as N thought I was calling the director on him. How do I say "this one's close - I don't want to win by use of UI, so I'll check." without making opps think I am trying to pull more out of them? 5) Am I just getting into a lather about nothing? Michael. -- Michael Farebrother A mathematician named Klein non-McQ legal .sig Thought the Moebius strip was quite fine. blml@farebrother.cx He said "If you glue (michael@ ok if no BLML The edges of two content ) You'll get a weird bottle like mine." From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 05:17:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:08:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20323 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:08:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1383Km-000IhD-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:08:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:04:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution References: <003101bfe201$fdf99460$abb5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <003101bfe201$fdf99460$abb5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003101bfe201$fdf99460$abb5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes > >-----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. >>> As a TD I get a lot of unsolicited comment from players about other players. Some allegations are quite serious. I always explain that I am grateful that the matter has been drawn to my attention but that unless I am called to the table I propose to do nothing about it. I point out that over a period of time I do get a picture of a problem or problems with a player, and can then do something about it. I cite a case from the acol where I have now had three or four comments about a player who fiddles with his bidding box. In fact there is no pattern to the complaints so I am in the happy position of being able to ask him not to do it and can tell him it causes problems with the other players even though I'm aware that it is a) unintentional, and b) innocent. The result will be that: either he stops doing it and the problem goes away or he continues doing it and next time I'm called I'll nail him with a PP (and he will know why). cheers john >>+=+ 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 > -- 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 Jul 1 05:21:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA20585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:07:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f149.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.149]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA20579 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 03:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8436 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jun 2000 17:07:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000630170712.8435.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:07:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:07:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? No, according to your system 2H is natural and 1NT had a failure to alert (as well as being a misbid). There is no partnership agreement that 2H is a transfer, even if that's what you expect partner thinks at the time. >[2] Do you complete the transfer? Pass and secretly hope that you get doubled so that partner can bid on to 2S himself. > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? No. >[4] Do you complete the transfer? Partner knows that 1NT is the minors and 2H is natural. Why would you think there's a transfer let alone do it? An aside to questions 1&2 above, assuming that you or your partner becomes declarer, do you announce the failure to alert and explain before the lead is chosen eventhough it was a misbid? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 05:26:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA20530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:52:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20525 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13841V-000Gqa-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:52:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:41:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Invisible Revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> 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. I do not find doing things in favour of my friends as the same as stuffing boorish and obnoxious people. After all, some of my friends are .... But if you tell your friends to take the LOOTs back and not the average person then you are not doing what is right. -- 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 Sat Jul 1 05:59:20 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 05:59:20 +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 FAA21120 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 05:59:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07621; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:55:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200006301955.MAA07621@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:30:57 PDT." <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:55:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > MPs, strong sectional field, average pairs (ok, I believe E-W to be > significantly above average but we^H^Hthey suck at matchpoints): > > When arriving at the table, N is telling S about the poor behaviour of E > previous round (who had hemmed and hawed, and touched several bidding cards, > before making a decision on the last board). > > Warning: not rotated for my convenience. > > North Deals 4 > E-W Vul J73 > T76432 W N E S > AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P > Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P > A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P > AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P > A8 6H AP > Q9 > QJ975 > > 1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning > Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. Is that what "sound" preempts mean? I thought they meant "preempt any time you feel like making a sound." At the beginning of our partnership, my most frequent partner wanted to play the rule of "1-1/2, 3, and 4", indicating the number of tricks your preempt is supposed to be short of your bid, depending on the vulnerability (unfavorable, equal, favorable). It wasn't until years later that I found out what he counts as a trick. First, I think he uses Losing Trick Count to determine his winning tricks, so that Qxx on the side gets counted as one trick since it's only two losers, and KQx is two tricks. Then, I suspect, he adds a trick for his excellent declarer play, and he probably adds another trick for his good looks. Now, when my partner preempts and an opponent asks about his preempting style, I just roll my eyes and sigh, and that's sufficient explanation. :-) > 2) regulation 10ish second pause. > 3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. > 4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. > 5) Director called at this point. > 6) 1430 for hearts. > > The TD is called and it is explained that East has paused significantly > before all of his bids. No disagreement is given, but E points out that > this first pause was no more than the 10 seconds required by the skip > bid, which is not challenged. TD proceeds to explain that "He has a > right to think; but it's ok as long as he bids." "Yes, W has UI, and he > mustn't use it." No FLB is brought out, no Laws are cited or read. > > As I^HEast thought that it was possible for W to have used UI, he called > TD back after the hand to check. N didn't think he was damaged, but E > thought it was close enough to want a TD ruling. The TD did not choose to > adjust - 6H made on slight misdefence (though I expect I would have got it > right anyway). > > Questions: > > 2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? No. No. Probably. The poor hearts suggest passing 4H is a LA. However, when dealing with a preempt, you generally want to play partner for some high cards; against a "sound" preempt, those cards are unlikely to be in diamonds, and partner can't have much in the black suits, so there's a good chance partner has something in hearts and yet be unable to bid any differently than he already did. Without UI, I would make a slam try, probably 5H, which I think is asking about trump quality in this auction, and which I think is a much better bid than 4NT. You'd probably end up in 5H instead of 6, but that's fine with this shaky trump holding and a better-than-usual chance that hearts aren't breaking. > Anyone consider that > the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? > What does the hesitation after 4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going > through my mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? The first hesitation isn't an issue, IMHO. The last two hesitations, when followed by the weakest possible bids, seem to indicate that the hesitator has more than a minimum, so they do demonstrably suggest the slam try. > 3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? My tendency would be to make a disgusting guttural noise. Or say, "Good grief, that looks like one of *your* sound preempts, partner." :-) > If you had been called on > possible MI, what would you tried to find out to decide MI or psych? > Should I report it to give evidence for possible CPU ruling later (I > don't like the idea that this was anything but a psyche, but I'm afraid > that investigation would show evidence that this was not "gross > misdescription" based on partnership experience). I am not accusing > him of being unethical - a 3D psych at those colours would occur to me, > too; but there are definately those who are, at best, deliberately > vague about their preemptive agreements around here. I think if this happened to me (as a player), I'd probably pick up the opponent's CC, study it, then say something like, "Hmmm, I thought you were playing sound preempts." This would give the opponents a chance to fix their card if it was accidentally mismarked, or if by some chance someone was playing with the CC for a different partnership (it happens). But I probably wouldn't do anything more than that, regardless of what response I get or don't get. > 4) Maybe I shouldn't have called the director back after the hand - > it made things a little (more) uncomfortable, as N thought I was calling > the director on him. How do I say "this one's close - I don't want to > win by use of UI, so I'll check." without making opps think I am trying > to pull more out of them? I might say something like "I'm calling the director on ourselves". Personally, in this case, I don't think I'd call the director back unless my opponents were novices who might not know their rights. By the time the hand is over, the director has been called once, so N-S have enough information that they can call the TD themselves if they think they were damaged. I don't have any problem with your actions, though. -- Adam -- There once was a man from Peru Whose limericks stopped at line two. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 06:20:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 06:03:31 +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 GAA21147 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 06:03:22 +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 QAA12914 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21983 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:03:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006302003.QAA21983@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" > xxx AKTx KJx Kxx would double 2S. This is probably the crux of our disagreement. It would never occur to me to double 2S in the direct seat with the above cards. I might not double even in balancing seat if 2S came around. On the original hand, with a singleton spade and decent values, it wouldn't occur to me to pass. I would not even consider it, let alone "seriously consider it." What we have just proved is that TD's and even more so AC's need to investigate the methods in use in the partnership, not just assume their favorite or locally standard methods. So I was hasty in wanting to keep the deposit. I still think the ruling is fairly clear in the EBU _unless_ the pair are playing methods where all decent hands double in direct seat. In spite of the above, if you think the original question doesn't particularly suggest one action over another, maybe the appeal is frivolous after all. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 06:22:52 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 06:22:52 +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 GAA21177 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 06:22:43 +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 QAA04168; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:22:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 16:20:35 -0400 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:30 PM -0400 6/30/00, Michael Farebrother wrote: >MPs, strong sectional field, average pairs (ok, I believe E-W to be >significantly above average but we^H^Hthey suck at matchpoints): >Warning: not rotated for my convenience. > >North Deals 4 >E-W Vul J73 > T76432 W N E S > AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P > Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P > A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P > AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P > A8 6H AP > Q9 > QJ975 > >1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning > Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. Potential MI, but it doesn't look like it caused any damage; I don't think East would have passed 3DX opposite "light" preempts. (If he does pass, he collects 800, which is better than the score in 6H if declarer misguesses trumps.) >2) regulation 10ish second pause. No UI. >3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. No real UI here either, as this could be a variety of different things; he could have been considering a penalty pass or 3NT. >4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. >5) Director called at this point. This is UI, since 4H is a minimum forced response and 4D is a slam try. The UI suggests extra values. >6) 1430 for hearts. Is pass a LA here? I think it is, because of the 4D bid. If West was going to bid 4NT over any response, he didn't need to bid 4D first. The UI makes it more likely that East has the ace or king of hearts. I would not have ruled that 4H was an LA on the previous round, with East's hand less limited; 4D and 4NT were both LA's and neither was suggested. >The TD is called and it is explained that East has paused significantly >before all of his bids. No disagreement is given, but E points out that >this first pause was no more than the 10 seconds required by the skip >bid, which is not challenged. TD proceeds to explain that "He has a >right to think; but it's ok as long as he bids." This is potentially confusing to the opponents; while slow passes are the most common problem with hesitations, slow doubles and bids may also be problems. >"Yes, W has UI, and he >mustn't use it." No FLB is brought out, no Laws are cited or read. >As I^HEast thought that it was possible for W to have used UI, he called >TD back after the hand to check. N didn't think he was damaged, but E >thought it was close enough to want a TD ruling. This is a good piece of Active Ethics. Whenever I believe that weak opponents may not be aware of their rights or of proper procedure, I will call the TD to protect them. > The TD did not choose to >adjust - 6H made on slight misdefence (though I expect I would have got it >right anyway). > >Questions: > >1) If you had been the TD called at (5), what would have been your >spiel? I am pretty certain that the one we got was less than optimal, >as it focussed almost completely on the hesitator, not on partner. "East's hesitation is UI to West. West must not make a call which could have been suggested by the hesitation if he has a LA. Please call me back at the end of the hand if you believe West might have done so and you were damaged." >2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone consider that >the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? >What does the hesitation after 4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going >through my mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? Thi sis a hard question, and one an AC might decide. I think the TD should rule as I did above, adjusting to 4H making six, and an AC might overturn it. >3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? If you had been called on >possible MI, what would you tried to find out to decide MI or psych? >Should I report it to give evidence for possible CPU ruling later (I >don't like the idea that this was anything but a psyche, but I'm afraid >that investigation would show evidence that this was not "gross >misdescription" based on partnership experience). I am not accusing >him of being unethical - a 3D psych at those colours would occur to me, >too; but there are definately those who are, at best, deliberately >vague about their preemptive agreements around here. I think a recorder form is appropriate. On the form, you might write, "This could either be a legitimate psychic call in this situation, or an agreement to preempt lighter than marked on the C," so that the recorder will consider both options. >4) Maybe I shouldn't have called the director back after the hand - >it made things a little (more) uncomfortable, as N thought I was calling >the director on him. How do I say "this one's close - I don't want to >win by use of UI, so I'll check." without making opps think I am trying >to pull more out of them? When you call the director, say something like that. I have often had to call the director about such things as L16B which have nothing to do with the opposition, and I usually say, "I'm calling the TD now for something unrelated to what just happened; I may have overheard something on this board." In a situation like yours, "I'm calling the TD back because his previous explanation may have been confusing and I would like to ensure that everyone's rights are protected." From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 07:32:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 07:32:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21329 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 07:32:02 +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 1388O6-0008m3-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 22:31:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 20:59:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? References: <200006301702.KAA05202@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006301702.KAA05202@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty >card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he >likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. > >(1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is > on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to > exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the > suit to be led at the next trick? > >(2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer > ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now > does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? > >I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely >clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. Yes, both times. Surely the Law is clear? "When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected ...." -- 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 Sat Jul 1 08:22:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:22:24 +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 IAA21468 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:22:14 +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 PAA09508; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:18:32 -0700 Message-Id: <200006302218.PAA09508@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:02:56 PDT." <200006301702.KAA05202@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 15:18:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty > card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he > likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. > > (1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is > on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to > exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the > suit to be led at the next trick? > > (2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer > ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now > does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? > > I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely > clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. OK, I got three private responses, all of whom agree with me that the answer is yes. The reason I was wondering was this: The situation (one defender has a penalty card, the other one is on lead) comes up with some frequency. When we call the TD and he or she explains the options, declarer often selects the option to let leader lead anything they want and keep the card as a penalty card. At that point, the director usually says, "OK, the card remains a penalty card that must be played at the first legal opportunity" or something to that effect; then the TD usually walks away, figuring their job is done. Are our TD's handling this situation correctly? Should they wait around the table until the penalty card is played, so that if leader retains or regains the lead, the TD can inform declarer that they have options again? Should they at least tell declarer, before they walk away, that "if the defender wins this trick, or later gets the lead, and the penalty card is still there, you will have the same options that I just gave you"? The way things actually happen, it makes it appear that once the declarer selects the "lead anything you want" option, that's the last time they get to select an option, and the only restrictions after that are that the penalty card must be led or played at the first legal opportunity. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 08:27:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21490 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:26:57 +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 SAA17282 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:26:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA22125 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:26:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:26:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200006302226.SAA22125@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Jun 30 00:15:56 2000 > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:32:15 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > 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 fail to see how you can rule anything illegal under L40A. What you can do is rule that a call or play _fails to meet the conditions_ of L40A. If that's so, then it might or might not violate some other law or regulation, but L40A does not itself _prohibit_ anything, so by definition it cannot be violated. The most likely laws to be violated when the conditions of L40A are not met are L40B and L75C. (Was "L40A" was a misprint for L40B?) Consider a 1NT opening on 10 points. The CC is marked "15-17," but responder passes with 10 points. Looks Red to me! Presumably the CC should have been marked "10-17" or "(10),15-17" or even "10-12." So L40B, then L40C if the opponents were damaged. In other words, there is no doubt that "psychics" can break the laws even if not conventional, but they can't break L40A. I don't think David and I would rule differently in practical cases, given identical bridge judgment, but it appears we would cite slightly different laws as justification. Maybe that's not important. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 10:34:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 10:34:56 +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 KAA21676 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 10:34:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.58]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000701003413.SDLZ1324558.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:34:13 +1200 Message-ID: <005701bfe2f3$fcc89f80$3a2d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:33:07 +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: "David Stevenson" > 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. I don't see how banning conventions after 8-10 range 1-level bids is reasonable but banning them over a different range would be unreasonable. [4] It would be possible to make a regulation that was not intended by the lawmakers but is equally reasonable to one that suits the current fashion/style/wim of the regulation makers but has been condoned by WBF (see [3]). In my opinion the WBF statement in [3] was myopic. > [5] Therefore it is not legal. My arguement was more that it is possible to make a regulation that could not be the intention of the law makers but if they say that such regulations are part of there intention then so be it. > > 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. > To my mind banning conventions over any range 1NT bid is equally a terrible regulation. I also don't see how it is a misuse to do what has been specifically allowed. If it is reasonable to restrict conventions over one range of bids then surely it is equally reasonable to restrict them over another. It merely caters to a different style or fashion there is nothing inherent in the game that makes one range more reasonable than another - you try them all and choose the one that suits your style and produces the 'best' results, most enjoyment or whatever. Wayne Burrows From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 10:54:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 10:54:33 +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 KAA21717 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 10:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.45.58]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000701005344.SGFT1324558.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:53:44 +1200 Message-ID: <010501bfe2f6$b6aa27a0$3a2d37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:53:02 +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: "David Stevenson" > > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? No you are playing 1NT for minors and a 2H response is natural. The opponents are entitled to know your methods. > [2] Do you complete the transfer? Not ethically. > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? No. Why it shows hearts. > [4] Do you complete the transfer? How do you know it is a transfer? > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I > shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers > without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked > about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the > authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is > ambiguous and should be re-written. > > > -- > 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 Sat Jul 1 11:33:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:33:41 +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 LAA21793 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:33:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.192]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000701013321.PVUP381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:33:21 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfe2fd$554742c0$c058fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:40:26 +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: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:40 PM Subject: Alert? > > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > No > > [2] Do you complete the transfer? > No > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > No > > [4] Do you complete the transfer? > No > Your opponents are entitled to know what you system is not what you are both bidding on. You should, before the opening lead is made, if you are the dec side, inform opps that there has been a failure to alert.You may or may not chose to insinuate or even more inform them that you had forgotten when you called.You are not obliged by Law to do so. > Should it transpire that a) you have forgotten the system when you called b) your partner forgot the system when he responded, and b) the opps get a poor score, I think the TD may be looking at whether the "We have been here before" syndrome could exist.There is evidence. > Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 13:45:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:45:53 +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 NAA21988 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:45:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l64.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.196]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01184 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 23:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000630234520.01354454@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 23:45:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:30 PM 6/30/2000 -0400, Michael wrote: >Questions: > >1) If you had been the TD called at (5), what would have been your >spiel? I am pretty certain that the one we got was less than optimal, >as it focussed almost completely on the hesitator, not on partner. You are right, the TD's remarks are off-base. There is no legal violation by East in hesitating, but the TD's comments should have been to the effect of alerting West to his legal responsibilities and limitations. >2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone consider that >the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? >What does the hesitation after 4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going >through my mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? Pass is clearly not a LA for West on either the first or second round of bidding. You don't give your playing venue nor the applicable standards for determining an LA therein, but I would think pass _might_ be an LA only by the rather bizarre ACBL standards. In general, it pays to assume a fair share of the missing HCP in partner's hand in these situations, so partner should be crediting you with about 5-6 points. If these include a top heart honor, then slam is a good prospect, especially with the beefy spade suit on the side, and you rate to have 5-level safety more often than not even when East lacks the A and K of hearts. The first hesitation, by mutual agreement of all concerned, says nothing at all, being the appropriate normal hesitation over a pre-empt. But the hesitation over 4D points toward some high cards, IMO, and a partner who may be worrying about whether he is doing enough with those cards. If we agree that Pass is a LA over 4H (a big if) then I think we must roll the contract back to 4H, as the hesitation does suggest moving on. >3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? If you had been called on >possible MI, what would you tried to find out to decide MI or psych? >what would you tried to find out to decide MI or psych? >Should I report it to give evidence for possible CPU ruling later (I >don't like the idea that this was anything but a psyche, but I'm afraid >that investigation would show evidence that this was not "gross >misdescription" based on partnership experience). I am not accusing >him of being unethical - a 3D psych at those colours would occur to me, >too; but there are definately those who are, at best, deliberately >vague about their preemptive agreements around here. Even if I conclude that EW are misinformed about the meaning of the NS bid, it is hard to argue that they were damaged by it. If I think that NS are guilty of a CPU ( and they certainly may be guilty of at least incomplete disclosure on their CC), the most I would do is to issue a warning to NS to be clearer about their methods on their CC >4) Maybe I shouldn't have called the director back after the hand - >it made things a little (more) uncomfortable, as N thought I was calling >the director on him. How do I say "this one's close - I don't want to >win by use of UI, so I'll check." without making opps think I am trying >to pull more out of them? Others will disagree, but I really don't see that you have any ethical obligation to protect NS' interests here. They have been (or should have been) advised by the TD of their rights to request a review at the end of the hand. If you feel that they are not clear about the matter, you could gently suggest that you would certainly not object if they felt a need to call the director back... Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 14:20:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 14:20:44 +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 OAA22036 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 14:20:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l0l.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.21]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02017 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 00:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000701001356.013570ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 00:13:56 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: References: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:20 PM 6/30/2000 -0400, David G wrote: >Is pass a LA here? I think it is, because of the 4D bid. If West was >going to bid 4NT over any response, he didn't need to bid 4D first. Perhaps, but so what? You are making the usual mistake in UI analysis, which is trying to extrapolate the bidder's motives from his actions. _His motives are irrelevant._ His supposed plan in bidding 4D is irrelvant, owing to the simple fact that we don't know what it was. Not surprising, since he probably didn't know himself. He was confident that 4D was forcing, and quite likely had not considered how to proceed after the continuation. Oh no! Now you've got me doing it too! I repeat, I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T! The question is how some hypothetical group of strong players (for we are assured of that) would act after the 4H bid, absent the hesitation. If Michael's venue uses some version of the European standard, setting a 25% or 30% standard, then it seems to me unreasonable to argue that as many as that number would pass 4H, needing little more than KTxx of hearts and out to have at least a fair play for slam. In ACBL, I agree that things are a bit dicier, but in any case we are not to cast ourselves as mindreaders. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 1 18:04:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA22317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 18:04:15 +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 SAA22312 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 18:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11049 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2000 08:02:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.36) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 08:02:21 -0000 Message-ID: <395DA5DD.8D45A3EB@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 11:03:41 +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: Alert? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just behave : 1) If didn't alert ......alert and bid 2S . 2) If alerted .. pass the 2H (without alerting) But if your side becomes Declarer - don't let the opponents to lead and summon the TD and explain all what happened ( both cases) . Dany David Stevenson wrote: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [2] Do you complete the transfer? > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [4] Do you complete the transfer? > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I > shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers > without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked > about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the > authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is > ambiguous and should be re-written. > > -- > 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 Sun Jul 2 01:18:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:18:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA22866 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha125171 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:17:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-212-23.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.23]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Tidy-MailRouter V2.8a 7/599169); 02 Jul 2000 01:17:47 Message-ID: <014501bfe3d3$cf7020e0$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:15:43 +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: >2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone >consider that the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" >slam try over passing 4H? What does the hesitation after >4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going through my >mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? Is Pass a LA to dbl? No, obviously. To 4D? No. To 4NT? Not sure. West now has UI from partner's last two hesitations. It's not impossible that East could have a 2344 yarborough and have been thinking over the double - "will I bid my three small hearts?" and over 4D - "can I do anything except rebid three small?". Thus the UI may suggest Pass over bidding as well as (more likely) suggesting bidding over Pass. This may negate the LA consideration. I'd probably check with more expert TDs if available, with a tendency to allow the 4NT call. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 01:37:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:37:50 +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 BAA22922; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:37:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.244] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:36:55 -0300 Date: 01 Jul 2000 12:34:55 -0700 Message-ID: <-1249667604jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: Alert? To: , David Stevenson , David Stevenson , 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 BAB22923 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Friday, June 30, 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? No, our system agreement is that it is natural. >[2] Do you complete the transfer? No, I awakened myself to my error, so I abide by our system agreement. I inform my opponents as to the meaning of 1NT should they become defenders. > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? I have been awakened by UI from my partner. No, I would not have alerted it without the UI. >[4] Do you complete the transfer? No, I do not complete the transfer. I inform my opponents of the problem before the opening lead. > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I >shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers >without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked >about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the >authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is >ambiguous and should be re-written. > > >-- >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 Sun Jul 2 01:54:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:54:36 +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 BAA22951; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:54:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.160] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:54:15 -0300 Date: 01 Jul 2000 12:52:15 -0700 Message-ID: <-1249666818jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? To: , Adam Beneschan , CC: X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Disposition-Notification-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAB22954 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My understanding is that as long as East has the major penalty card and West is on lead, Declarer has the options prescribed in Law 50D2. *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Friday, June 30, 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty >card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he >likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. > >(1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is > on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to > exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the > suit to be led at the next trick? > >(2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer > ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now > does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? > >I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely >clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. > > -- thanks, Adam > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 01:54:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA22963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:54:39 +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 BAA22953; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:54:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.160] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:54:18 -0300 Date: 01 Jul 2000 12:52:18 -0700 Message-ID: <-1249666565jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? To: , Adam Beneschan , CC: X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind Disposition-Notification-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAB22958 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I remain at the table until the penalty card goes away. I believe this to be the best course of action. If the partner of the defender holding the penalty card gained the lead again and the penalty card still exists, then I inform declarer of their options once again. *************************************************************** ##### # # ####### # # # ### # ### ### #### # # # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ### # # ### ### # # # ## Voice: (441) 297-TECH Fax: (441) 293-4421 Jack A. Rhind (441) 293-0282 *************************************************************** On Friday, June 30, 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I wrote: > >> South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty >> card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he >> likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. >> >> (1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is >> on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to >> exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the >> suit to be led at the next trick? >> >> (2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer >> ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now >> does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? >> >> I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely >> clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. > >OK, I got three private responses, all of whom agree with me that the >answer is yes. > >The reason I was wondering was this: The situation (one defender has a >penalty card, the other one is on lead) comes up with some frequency. >When we call the TD and he or she explains the options, declarer often >selects the option to let leader lead anything they want and keep the >card as a penalty card. At that point, the director usually says, >"OK, the card remains a penalty card that must be played at the first >legal opportunity" or something to that effect; then the TD usually >walks away, figuring their job is done. Are our TD's handling this >situation correctly? Should they wait around the table until the >penalty card is played, so that if leader retains or regains the lead, >the TD can inform declarer that they have options again? Should they >at least tell declarer, before they walk away, that "if the defender >wins this trick, or later gets the lead, and the penalty card is still >there, you will have the same options that I just gave you"? > >The way things actually happen, it makes it appear that once the >declarer selects the "lead anything you want" option, that's the last >time they get to select an option, and the only restrictions after >that are that the penalty card must be led or played at the first >legal opportunity. > > -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 02:32:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 02:32:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA23242 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 02:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka125408 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 02:32:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-212-23.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.23]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Multi-Threaded-MailRouter V2.8a 7/603891); 02 Jul 2000 02:32:01 Message-ID: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:29:57 +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: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember >that 1NT actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You >hold a fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural >2H response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? The obvious instinctive reply is NO. However, there are a lot of factors to consider: (a) L40B says: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning...." (Note that L75A, about "the current deal", aplies only to "information conveyed to partner", not to the opponents). You strongly suspect that partner has five spades, because you have a PU to play transfers opposite a 1NT overcall and partner has not alerted 1NT. The 2H probable-transfer is thus "based on a special partnership understanding", but not one that has technically taken place on the current deal. I'm not sure if that argument has a gaping hole in it. If not, it suggests that 2H might be Alertable. (b) If you are sure that partner has five spades, it seems unethical not to let the opponents know what you know. Some years ago, I had a long discussion with an Aussie Recorder about this very issue. He thinks that in this situation, you should Alert and, when requested, say something like: "it's complicated; do you want to know the full story?" or "depending on how partner interpreted my bid, he may have spades or hearts, do you want to know more?" Sure, my friend thinks, you are thus giving partner UI, but Law 40B and commonsense suggest to him that it's more important to keep the opponents informed about what is going on. I'm still not sure if he's right or wrong. So far the majority of BLML replies suggest the latter. (c) It appears from DWS's post that the Strong 1C was not alerted. Depending on EBU rules, this may be the first infraction, which may be relevant. (d) The SO's rules about what partner should do after Failing To Alert may be relevant. (e) Sometimes one later realises that the 1NT was systemically 15 -18 after all. In practice, with partner seeming to think that 1NT is 15 -18, this will often be the case. This may be relevant. (f) In situations where both you and your partner appear to have forgotten the "system", it may be that it is not really the "system". There is likely to be a reason for your simultaneous memory lapses, e.g. your new agreement (that 1NT is for the minors) has only just been adopted. In this case, it could be argued that, although you have agreed to play the gadget, it isn't your "system" until you both can remember that you're actually playing it! In which case 2H is Alertable. (g) The same Aussie Recorder convinced me that you MUST alert 2H if either of you has EVER forgotten the same bid before (since the opponents must be fully informed of partnership experience as well as system). I would add a rider that it is relevant to check exactly what is required to be alerted according to the SO. >[2] Do you complete the transfer? Unlike most BLMers, again I think that a complex can of worms has been opened. Without the UI provided by partner's failure to alert, i.e. if partner had have alerted 1NT, surely I would raise 2H to 3H or 4H, since I have woken myself up to the fact that I have more hearts and many more points than expected by a partner who has bypassed our logical playing spots of 2C and 2D. Partner may even have psyched 2H with big minor support! To consider Pass or 2S is IMO ridiculous, since they were not amongst my original options. The hands might be: Me CHO AQ10x Kxx Kxx QJ10xxx Axx xx Kxx xx 4H will usually make 10 or 11 tricks, and partner might reject a 3H Game Try which he would interpret as perhaps a good 1255 shape, wrongly devaluing his SK on the above hand. Therefore I think I should bid 4H. That's not exactly what everyone else concluded, but if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time for me on BLML this month. Partner has bid 2H opposite a hand like xxx, - , Kxxxx, Qxxxx. I have 11 extra HCP and three extra hearts. Pass would be insane, on total tricks principles (we have at least nine hearts) for those who still think that game is unlikely. Still, perhaps I have to accept that Pass is a LA, since so many of my peers on BLML have bid it! Perhaps this means that at the table I should consider whether to Pass, a call which I personally would never have made! > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? No, not under EBU rules, since 2H is "natural, to play". In Australia the fact that 2H suggests shortage in both minors may make 2H Alertable, by the way. >[4] Do you complete the transfer? No. If my 4333 16 count has nice AQ's over RHO's points, I bid 4H. If I have too many queens and jacks, only 3H. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 03:44:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA23358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 03:44:29 +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 DAA23353 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 03:44:19 +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 NAA07267 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:44:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000701001356.013570ec@pop.mindspring.com> References: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 13:40:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:13 AM -0400 7/1/00, Michael S. Dennis wrote: [(3D)-P-X-3H-4D-...4H-4NT; 4NT bidder held AKQT9 Q9xx A AKx] >At 04:20 PM 6/30/2000 -0400, David G wrote: >>Is pass a LA here? I think it is, because of the 4D bid. If West was >>going to bid 4NT over any response, he didn't need to bid 4D first. > >Perhaps, but so what? You are making the usual mistake in UI analysis, >which is trying to extrapolate the bidder's motives from his actions. _His >motives are irrelevant._ His supposed plan in bidding 4D is irrelvant, >owing to the simple fact that we don't know what it was. I don't agree here, because I define "the player's peers" as "those players of comparable skill who bid the same way." For purposes of determining LA's, we can ignore any player who would have bid 4NT directly over 3H, because these players have already evaluated the hand differently. This wouldn't afect things in the ACBL, but might elsewhere in determining a percentage. Suppose that 70% of all players would bid 4NT directly, 10% would bid 5H directly, 10% would bid 4D and then 4NT over 4H, and 10% would bid 4D and then 5H over 4H. Under the 25% rule, I would say that 5H is a LA to 4NT, because half of all players who bid 4D would bid 5H, even though 20% of all players placed in this situation by force would bid 5H. The situation is more common when a player leaves a decision to partner and then overrides it. Consider the following auctions: N E S W 1H X 2H 2S 3H P P ...X P 3S P P P N E S W 1H X 2H 2S P P 3H ...X P 3S P P P In both situations, the double of 3H is slow. On the first sequence, East could have competed to 3S over 3H (assuming that E-W play that 3S is competitive here), but he chose not to. On the second hand, East had no chance to act over 3H, and could have passed hoping to buy the contract at 2S with the intention of bidding 3S later. Now give East a hand on which 80% of players would bid 3S on the second sequence, say QJxx x KQxxx Axx (adjust as you wish; I'm not good at estimating what 80% of players will do). Under the 25% rule for LA's, pass is not an LA, and 3S should be allowed on the second sequence. However, if East chooses to pass that hand on the first sequence, he will not be allowed to pull West's double; he asked partner to decide whether to compete, and partner made the decision. It may still be true that 80% of players sitting East would rather bve in 3S than 3Hx, but East's peers are those players who would rather sell out to 3H undoubled than bid 3S. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 04:09:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 04:09:53 +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 EAA23395 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 04:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 48168 invoked for bounce); 1 Jul 2000 18:09:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.123) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 18:09:30 -0000 Message-ID: <001f01bfe387$abeba320$7b291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:10:32 +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 David Stevenson asked: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [2] Do you complete the transfer? My answer is essentially the same as David G.'s I do not alert the 2H bid, because according to our agreements 2H is natural. Opponents are entitled to be informed about our agreements, they are not entitled to the information that I have misbid. I do not complete the transfer, because I remembered on my own that 2H is natural. I have the UI that partner has *not* alerted 1NT, this UI suggests that partner has forgotten system, too, and intends 2H as transfer. The UI thus demonstrably suggests completing the transfer over passing. Depending on the range of the 2H bid, I will either pass, or make a move towards 4H. > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [4] Do you complete the transfer? I still do not alert the 2H bid. This time, partner's alert has provided me with the UI that I misbid. I am thus not allowed to "remember" that 1NT is minors rather than natural. I complete the transfer (or bid 2NT/3S according to system), just as I would have I we played with screens and did not remember system on my own. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 05:10:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:10:39 +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 FAA23526 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054gbb.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.65.107]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA22415 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000201bfe390$0040b660$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 14:58:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Thursday, June 29, 2000 9:55 AM 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 > Where are the Heart spots and what was the auction? If W had a wildly distributional hand, so that the trump he ruffed with was a singleton, and E started with something like A987 of Hearts, ruffing low is the only way to prevent a trump promotion, which a clever E would certainly be trying for. Improbable, but stranger things have happened. Are you sure that a low ruff is irrational, when possible layouts exist on which it is the only winning play? The ruling may depend on spots. If S has bad trump spots, then the success of the play of the high trump depends on finding W with another trump. Low ruff is not irrational, as it may be the only winning line. 70E applies, and the high ruff is disallowed. Down 1. It's more difficult when the S spots are good enough to ruff high and finesse a four card E holding if a low trump to the K reveals a bad break. Since the hand can now be made on any trump distribution, the play no longer depends on finding W with another trump, and 70E is irrelevant. So, we look at 70C. Declarer failed to mention the trump. So, the remaining conditions are: Is it at all likely that Declarer was unaware of the trump and could the Declarer lose a trick to the trump by normal play? In this scenario, Declarer is looking at good trump spots, and needs to be specifically aware of the nine. The standard "is at all likely" is not a high standard to meet. IMO, failure to mention the trump is likely to be sufficient evidence that Declarer was unaware of it. (Declarer was certainly not aware of the possible need for two safety plays on the hand: first the high ruff to guard against the overruff, then a low trump to the K, to preserver the club entries to Dummy if both were needed to finesse a four card E trump holding including at least the 9. This will depend on exact spots. Not relevant on the actual lie of the cards, but still a possible concern at the time of the claim that Declarer did not account for. IMO Declarer had not thought this position through before claiming.) My inclination is to rule that it was "at all likely" that Declarer was unaware of the nine. After all, as others have said, if he was aware of it, he could have said so when he claimed. Down 1. Ruling down 1 has the added advantage that Declarer will start making claim statements in the future, at least when I direct. Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 05:33:57 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA23622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:33:57 +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 FAA23617 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 05:33:49 +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 LAA18881 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:34:06 -0800 Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:34:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Alert? In-Reply-To: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > > You strongly suspect that partner has five spades, because > you have a PU to play transfers opposite a 1NT overcall and > partner has not alerted 1NT. The 2H probable-transfer is This business of "because partner didn't Alert 1NT he must think it is a strong balanced hand and that he can make a transfer" is really beginning to bother me. There are plenty of reasons why partner might have failed to alert. The most common is that he was drinking coffee, or ogling a caddy, or quietly cursing what went wrong on the previous board; usually if this is the case, it gets caught and correctly alerted before the auction is over, but not always. Next most common is confusion about the alert rules (I play in the ACBL, after all). These two together account for at least two-thirds of the failures to alert that happen at my table. There is no reason to presume partner has spades solely because he didn't alert 1NT. Trust thy partner, even when he has made one mistake already. Occasionally I (or my partner) is uncertain of the system and has to guess what a bid means, and therefore also has to guess whether to alert it or not. Unlike Peter Gill and the Australian recorder, I find it preferable to minimize UI than to give a long garbled spiel to everyone about how confused I am. The rules for what to do after a failure to alert, a misbid, or a misexplanation, are straightforward. The UI mess if I reveal my confusion and name all the possibilities is a nightmare. Normally, this means you pick one possibility and play it through to its logical conclusion. But, you may also be able to make a bid that caters to both possibilities -- which you can do! -- and try in the process to give away as little UI as possible. Suppose partner has made a NT overcall and I can't tell if it was natural or for the minors. Holding 3-5-3-2 shape I bid 2D, and don't care whether partner passes or bids 2H. I expect partner to bid according to the system, whatever it is, regardless of whether or not I alert his 1NT. Whether I alert 1NT will depend entirely on which UI/MI situation I think will be an uglier mess to sort out after the fact: partner passing and saying I failed to alert 1NT, or partner completing the transfer and saying I incorrectly alerted a natural 1NT. In my experience the latter is an uglier mess, so at the table, I would not alert this 1NT bid. Either way, I am relying on partner to stick to the system. If partner knows our agreement was the minors, there will be WAR if he completes a transfer, whether I alert or not, and whether he has a balanced 17 or not. >From a partnership trust standpoint, there is no excuse for one partner to intentionally ignore the system because he thinks his partner is lost. Looks REALLY bad if partner knew what he was doing all along, and also tends to lead to UI or fielded-psych trouble if it works. --- Getting back to the original question - I think the answers are No, No, No, and No, and are completely crystal clear. Whether you should raise hearts because you have 3 of them is more questionable, and depends on your NT-overcall style. Over a precision club, I would consider 1NT routine on 3244/2344 shape, and pass 2H; if you are more disciplined, raise to 3. Raising to 4 with a flat hand knowing the opponents have a big hand seems mildly suicidal. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 07:07:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA23789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 07:07:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA23784 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 07:06:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-1054h76.biz.mindspring.com [64.82.68.230]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA22535 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 17:06:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000a01bfe3a0$4668a980$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000201bfe390$0040b660$010aa2c6@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 17:06:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim I've got to read these things more carefully. On my previous post, I didn't note that W had already followed to one round of trump before ruffing. Therefore, the whole thing was silly about the trump break was silly. Sorry, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 08:38:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:38:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtppop1.gte.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA24003 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust133.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.133]) by smtppop1.gte.net with ESMTP for ; id RAA9379662 Sat, 1 Jul 2000 17:35:50 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <00ef01bfe3ae$af1ea8e0$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: "BLML" References: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:48:48 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote > David Stevenson wrote: > > LHO You RHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember > >that 1NT actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You > >hold a fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural > >2H response to 1NT is not. > > > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > >bidding is the same. > > > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > > No, not under EBU rules, since 2H is "natural, to play". > In Australia the fact that 2H suggests shortage in both minors > may make 2H Alertable, by the way. > ok, opponents are informed correctly. > >[4] Do you complete the transfer? > > No. If my 4333 16 count has nice AQ's over RHO's points, > I bid 4H. If I have too many queens and jacks, only 3H. This I don't see. The UI of partner's alert has told me I misbid, our opponents are entitled to our agreements, while I must continue my first course until the logic of the auction allows me to wake up. I complete the "transfer". > Peter Gill > Australia. Mike Dodson > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 10:08:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 10:08:47 +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 KAA24142 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 10:08:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.23]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000702000824.NAPS290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:08:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000501bfe3ba$a24f6e40$1758fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <00ef01bfe3ae$af1ea8e0$0b00000a@mike> Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:15:30 +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: "Mike Dodson" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 11:48 PM Subject: Re: Alert? > Peter Gill wrote > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > LHO You RHO CHO > > > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > > > > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember > > >that 1NT actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > > > > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You > > >hold a fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > > > > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > > > > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural > > >2H response to 1NT is not. > > > > > > > > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > > >bidding is the same. > > > > > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > > > > No, not under EBU rules, since 2H is "natural, to play". > > In Australia the fact that 2H suggests shortage in both minors > > may make 2H Alertable, by the way. > > > ok, opponents are informed correctly. > > >[4] Do you complete the transfer? > > > > No. If my 4333 16 count has nice AQ's over RHO's points, > > I bid 4H. If I have too many queens and jacks, only 3H. > > This I don't see. The UI of partner's alert has told me I misbid, > Partner did not alert. > > our opponents are entitled to our agreements, while I must continue my first > course until the logic of the auction allows me to wake up. I complete the > "transfer". > > > Peter Gill > > Australia. > > Mike Dodson > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 13:16:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:48 +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 NAA24589 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net [216.252.211.77]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id fa123895 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:28:59 +1000 Message-ID: <000501bfe3d2$e6cd1320$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000625140458.00847770@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:47:57 +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 Any Director that made me pass with that hand, even after partner had danced taps on the table, would lose me from his game... Now what about Red vul? regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: 29 June 2000 10:37 Subject: Re: UK UI > 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 Sun Jul 2 13:16:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:47 +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 NAA24587 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net [216.252.211.77]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ea123894 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:28:58 +1000 Message-ID: <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: "BLML" References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 16:19:27 +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 Yes to all except 4 - this is a common occurrence here, especially at pairs - some clubs here have an informal rule that passed in hands will be redealt - people pay for 24-27 boards and clubs don't like to waste the punters money. Personally, I wouldn't redeal a board where anyone of the players had a hand in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat that I would open - 11+HCP or 10 and a 6 card major. Pearson points rule for 4th seat openings. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" Sent: 30 June 2000 3:26 Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > ----- 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 Sun Jul 2 13:16:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:49 +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 NAA24588 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net [216.252.211.77]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ga123896 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:29:02 +1000 Message-ID: <000601bfe3d2$e7a74680$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <4BVV0CAk59V5EwDu@blakjak.demon.co.uk><03e501bfdfe0$f6e47960$91d3fcd8@noelbuge> Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 17:07:18 +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 Noel is the Bridge player. No cats - we have pet birds - a Galah and a King Parrot (under licence). I think the Declarer definitely has an attitude problem. Any Director that tells me that I 'should have asked' is completely missing the point - they need to tell me when I can't possibly know - if you don't alert when the regulations say you should, then you are gone for all money. The most important thing is to get all the rulings the same (in a Zone). If one Director says the rule is X then all Directors (in that Zone) should say X - you Alert this and you don't Alert that etc. I'd love to say 'the world' rather than 'a zone' but I doubt that will ever happen. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: 29 June 2000 10:07 Subject: Re: Ruling from Schiphol 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 Sun Jul 2 13:16:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:49 +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 NAA24591 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:16:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net [216.252.211.77]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ha123897 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:29:04 +1000 Message-ID: <000701bfe3d2$e9495dc0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:13:22 +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 If 1NT is for the minors in my system, partners failure to alert means he either has forgotten what the bid means or he has simply forgotten to alert. My misbid is irrelevant - I must act as my system tells me - Pass. (I presume the 2H bid is not alertable if natural.) If I bid here, I am history. If partner is left to play 2H, I call the Director before the opening lead and explain that partner has not alerted my overcall which systemically shows the minors. If partner had forgotten what 1NT meant and had transferred to Spades, then now is the time for him to tell the opponents. After the lead I apologise to partner for forgetting the system. If partner had alerted the 1NT, then 2H is to play. I've effectively 'psyched'. I have no UI. Partner has misinformation through my misbid so only they are mislead. If I bid 2NT now, pard might work out that I have misbid. (Maybe at that point he should tell the opponents that I have misbid - but I doubt that he actually has to!) How often does this happen? Lots! If you ban me from bidding again, then you have to ban most relay systems.... regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: 30 June 2000 9:40 Subject: Alert? > > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [2] Do you complete the transfer? > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [4] Do you complete the transfer? > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I > shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers > without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked > about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the > authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is > ambiguous and should be re-written. > > > -- > 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 Sun Jul 2 13:33:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:33:25 +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 NAA24664 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:33:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-77.interpacket.net [216.252.211.77]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ma123902 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:45:50 +1000 Message-ID: <002f01bfe3d5$4168f540$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:26:01 +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 By that argument you alert an opening Pass because partner has denied 11 HCP and you had better tell the opponents that! ;-) Surely all you can do is salvage whatever you can from the situation? You must call the Director as soon as it is legal to do so and ALL will be revealed. If the opponents have been damaged, let the director fix the problem and get on with life. (I agree that if YOU have forgotten the system and 1NT was actually strong then you are creating a problem where there wasn't one in the first place - but alerting and saying it is a transfer to Spades runs the risk of a stronger charge against you - but you certainly won't forget it next time will you!) regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > > No, not under EBU rules, since 2H is "natural, to play". > In Australia the fact that 2H suggests shortage in both minors > may make 2H Alertable, by the way. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 14:22:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:44:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com [139.134.5.197]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA24708 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:44:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za389479 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 13:43:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-11.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.11]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ever-Changing-MailRouter V2.8a 11/792871); 02 Jul 2000 13:43:07 Message-ID: <003b01bfe43b$ee470b60$0be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:41:02 +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: >>>> Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. >>>>The bidding is the same. >>>> >>>>[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? >>>>[4] Do you complete the transfer? I wrote: >>> No. If my 4333 16 count has nice AQ's over RHO's points, >>> I bid 4H. If I have too many queens and jacks, only 3H. Mike Dodson wrote: >> This I don't see. The UI of partner's alert has told me I misbid, Anne Jones wrote: >Partner did not alert. Yes he did (see the first line of this post). In my previous post I had written so much that I had became tired and confused. I think that Mike Dodson and Thomas Dehn's arguments are convincing that in DWS's (4), I should bid 3S or 2S or 2NT (superaccept). Probably 3S if my cards look well-placed; my personal style is to superaccept a lot with 4 card support. Presumably those who answered "No" to (4) have either misunderstood the situation (as I did), or believe that when you have woken up just before hearing partner's "wake-up Alert" you are entitled to wake up. I'm even beginning to wonder about (3) even though "not alerting" has been everyone's preference; it does seem very inconsistent to bid 2S yet not alert 2H. So my answers now are: (1) not sure (2) probably 4H (3) not sure! and (4) probably 3S. The plot thickens. I await DWS's follow-up even more keenly. Peter Gill. Mike Dodson continued: >>our opponents are entitled to our agreements, while I must >>continue my first course until the logic of the auction allows >>me to wake up. I complete the "transfer". From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 18:44:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:44:10 +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 SAA25309 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 18:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.115] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 138fLy-0000Sa-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:43:50 +0100 Message-ID: <007501bfe401$f2e72cc0$735608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200006302226.SAA22125@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:59:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 11:26 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Jun 30 00:15:56 2000 > > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:32:15 +0100 > > From: David Stevenson > > 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 fail to see how you can rule anything illegal under L40A. What > you can do is rule that a call or play _fails to meet the conditions_ > of L40A. If that's so, then it might or might not violate some other > law or regulation, but L40A does not itself _prohibit_ anything, so > by definition it cannot be violated. > +=+ We have been here before. Law 40A is the Law which authorises players to make calls and sets the conditions for them. 40B, 40D address the conditions under which calls may be made that do not meet the primary requirements in 40A. A call is not lawful if the laws do not create the authority for it to be made. The game must be played strictly in accordance with its laws (and the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says that the laws define correct procedure). The player must ask 'where in the laws or regulations does it say that I may make this call?'. [It is possible, of course, that Steve Willner does not appreciate that if he plays a game in which he considers he is allowed to make calls not enabled by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, he is not playing the game of Duplicate Contract Bridge for which those Laws provide the basis. He may be reminded of the interpretation of the laws agreed by the WBF Laws Committee: "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play."] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 20:03:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 20:03:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f259.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA25570 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 20:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 59534 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jul 2000 10:02:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000702100239.59533.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.135.76.248 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 02 Jul 2000 03:02:39 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.135.76.248] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 03:02:39 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Peter Gill" >Presumably those who answered "No" to (4) have either >misunderstood the situation (as I did), or believe that when you >have woken up just before hearing partner's "wake-up Alert" >you are entitled to wake up. I didn't think of it as a UI problem initially. Had I thought of it as a purely a UI problem, I would have alerted 2H and completed the transfer after the alert. >I'm even beginning to wonder about (3) even though >"not alerting" has been everyone's preference; it does >seem very inconsistent to bid 2S yet not alert 2H. Truly. >So my answers now are: (1) not sure (2) probably 4H >(3) not sure! and (4) probably 3S. > >The plot thickens. I await DWS's follow-up even more keenly. As do I, but I'm surprized that anyone is bidding anything after 2H. 2H was natural and to play according to your system and 1NT was for the minors. If you bid anything, anything at all, your partner will have AI (it's based on a call, after all) that you misbid/psyched and you've walked into the territory of illegal two-way bids or psychic controls. (Yes, you may have forgotten and misbid, but the situation is indiscernable from a systematic psych except by your own testimony.) I also wonder if there's some comparison to 1D-3C-P-3H-P-4C, where 3C is Ghestem and 4C is a correction. 3C is an illegal bid when made, no? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 2 21:54:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA25934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 21:54:14 +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 VAA25929 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 21:54:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.251] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 138iJx-00032a-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 12:53:57 +0100 Message-ID: <00a001bfe41c$81fe3100$fb5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> <3955EAA5.4B2220FE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 12:50:11 +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: Sunday, June 25, 2000 12:19 PM Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D > 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. > +=+ I think it unwise to speculate upon an intention in something done so long ago. Firstly it should be noted that in effect what the WBF has said is that 80F is satisfied because a regulation made under another section of the laws is not in conflict with the laws if it is authorized by that section - be it 40D, 40E1, 80E or whatever. Secondly it should also be observed that had there been a conscious intention on the part of the legislators to limit the powers of regulation under any of these, it would have been simple enough to enter a restriction in the text of the law - as was in fact done in 40E1. I think one can infer, also, that there was no such intention in the matter which is the subject of Wayne's astonishment because it would have involved the Laws Committee (and the WBF Executive in ratification of the Law) in a positive decision to make illegal what was already the practice of the international bodies most strongly represented in the WBFLC and the Executive, and either then or soon afterwards also a power relied upon by the WBF itself. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 00:07:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:07:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA26100 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:07:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 82276 invoked for bounce); 2 Jul 2000 14:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.173) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 14:07:35 -0000 Message-ID: <008601bfe42f$0ac14f60$ad2a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200006302226.SAA22125@cfa183.harvard.edu> <007501bfe401$f2e72cc0$735608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:07:45 +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 We seem to be getting somewhere now. Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Jun 30 00:15:56 2000 > > > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:32:15 +0100 > > > From: David Stevenson > > > 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 fail to see how you can rule anything illegal under L40A. What > > you can do is rule that a call or play _fails to meet the conditions_ > > of L40A. If that's so, then it might or might not violate some other > > law or regulation, but L40A does not itself _prohibit_ anything, so > > by definition it cannot be violated. > > > +=+ We have been here before. Law 40A is the Law which > authorises players to make calls and sets the conditions > for them. 40B, 40D address the conditions under which > calls may be made that do not meet the primary > requirements in 40A. Yep. I.e., when a call is not explicitely allowed or disallowed by L40A, we look at the other respective laws and check whether those laws authorize the call. > A call is not lawful if the laws do > not create the authority for it to be made. The game > must be played strictly in accordance with its laws (and > the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says that the > laws define correct procedure). The player must ask > 'where in the laws or regulations does it say that I may > make this call?'. I agree. Actions which are not explicitely allowed in the laws or regulations are on thin ice and may be deemed illegal. With regard to psyches this means: any psyche which is authorized neither by L40A/L75B *nor*by*any*other*law*, probably is illegal. > [It is possible, of course, that Steve Willner does not > appreciate that if he plays a game in which he considers > he is allowed to make calls not enabled by the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, he is not playing the > game of Duplicate Contract Bridge for which those > Laws provide the basis. He may be reminded of the > interpretation of the laws agreed by the WBF Laws > Committee: "The Secretary drew attention to those > who argued that where an action was stated in the > laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions > if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the > Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if > information deriving from it is used in the auction or > the play."] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree here, too. Actions which are not forbidden are not automatically legitimate. The point I have been trying to make is that once a law allows some actions, this does not automatically forbid all other actions not explicitely allowed by this law. Neither does a law which forbids some actions explicitely allow all actions which not explicitely forbidden by this law. We first have to decide whether other laws authorize the action. IMHO the following holds true: 1) If a law authorizes some actions, then all similar actions which are not authorized by other laws are disallowed. 2) If a law disallows some actions, then all similar actions which are not disallowed by other laws are legitimate. L40 B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." With respect to psyches, it seems that L40B allows psyches or misbids where partner might be aware of the violation, provided that an opposing pair may 'reasonably' be expected to understand the situation. This IMHO covers 'well-known' psyches, like subminimum 3rd seat openers at favourable vulnerability. Once a player makes the same violation frequently, then "(but habitual violations in a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed)" from L75B kicks in, which demands disclosure. The major difference to Grattan's position is that a non-habitual psyche does not retroactively become illegal once partner 'fields' the psyche. The non-habitual psyche only needs prior disclosure if psycher knows at the time he makes the psychic bid that his partner will be aware of the psyche. [I intentionally ignored the difference between 'partner is aware that I psyched' and 'partner knows the type of my hand' here.] Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 00:16:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:16:38 +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 AAA26145 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:16:31 +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 e62EGI474238 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 10:16:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 10:17:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: References: <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:13 PM 6/28/00, David wrote: >Steve Willner 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? I imagine Steve is trying to tell David that that might be the case. We recently had a very active debate on this very point, and it has not, at least yet, reached a consensus. We know that when adjudicating claims, we do not impose on the claimer any "irrational" line. The still-open question is whether the footnote tells us that what is "irrational" depends on the class of player involved, or specifically that it does not -- that the fact that a play that might be common or usual for a lesser player but careless or inferior for a better player (even extremely so) doesn't affect whether or not it is "irrational". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 00:23:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:23:52 +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 AAA26179 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:23:42 +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 e62ENTQ85452 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 10:23:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000702102303.00aa4c20@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 10:24:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL position on Psychics In-Reply-To: <002301bfe1dc$0337b360$598893c3@pacific> References: <000d01bfdff1$2a9b5ac0$c73467c0@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:21 AM 6/29/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ 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. I don't see why. This issue has been around for decades. All that's needed to put it to rest for once and for all would be a brief statement of policy published in the ACBL Bulletin. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 00:31:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:31:43 +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 AAA26211 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA11199 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:30:52 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:30 +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: <007501bfe401$f2e72cc0$735608c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ We have been here before. Law 40A is the Law which > authorises players to make calls and sets the conditions > for them. 40B, 40D address the conditions under which > calls may be made that do not meet the primary > requirements in 40A. A call is not lawful if the laws do > not create the authority for it to be made. The game > must be played strictly in accordance with its laws (and > the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says that the > laws define correct procedure). The player must ask > 'where in the laws or regulations does it say that I may > make this call?'. If we accept this interpretation, and for a moment strip L40A of its subordinate clauses, we are left with "A player may make any call or play provided [it] is not based on a partnership understanding." Where is the authority to open 1NT with an agreed range of 12-14? Or that may/may not include a 5CM/6Cm? Where then the authority to complete the transfer in the sequence 1N-2H-2S? BTW - if anybody has yet found an authority that clarifies (even a bit) the level of mutual knowledge necessary to classify a psyche as "based on a partnership understanding" I would still love to here it. > [It is possible, of course, that Steve Willner does not > appreciate that if he plays a game in which he considers > he is allowed to make calls not enabled by the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, he is not playing the > game of Duplicate Contract Bridge for which those > Laws provide the basis. Ooh look, Grattan being patronising again. > He may be reminded of the > interpretation of the laws agreed by the WBF Laws > Committee: But which only becomes law when effectively promulgated to ordinary TDs/players (just a reminder - not relevant to the current debate). > "The Secretary drew attention to those > who argued that where an action was stated in the > laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions > if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the > Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if > information deriving from it is used in the auction or > the play."] So the use of bidding boxes is illegal? - Of course not. Common sense tells us that just because an action is not explicitly forbidden does not mean it is permitted. It also tells us that the corollary is not true either (ie certain actions may be legal even if not explicitly permitted). Even the secretary acknowledges that such an action "may" (and so presumably may not) be an infraction - and even then only if "information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play." Obviously this interpretation cannot be used to rule a psyche illegal per se. Only if the information derived is actually used. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 01:21:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:38 +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 BAA26388 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02747 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F45AB.128F5D25@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:37:47 +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: Psyches, another try References: <20000626161940.3315.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > 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. > That is a totally different question, Todd. Why should it be illegal to open very weak hands if you include no means of systemically getting away with it yourself ? You are taking a risk, after all. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 01:58:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:58:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26540 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:58:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2inio6q.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.96.218]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA19067 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@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, 02 Jul 2000 09:11:38 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: >North Deals 4 >E-W Vul J73 > T76432 W N E S > AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P > Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P > A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P > AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P > A8 6H AP > Q9 > QJ975 > >1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning > Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. >2) regulation 10ish second pause. >3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. >4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. >5) Director called at this point. >6) 1430 for hearts. > [SNIP] >Questions: > >1) If you had been the TD called at (5), what would have been your >spiel? in the usa, the standard tournament procedure is for the director to establish that there has been a hesitation (apparently there is no dispute about this) and to instruct play to continue, asking the non offending side to call him back if they feel they were damaged. it is not always stated to hesitator's partner that he is not to take a call suggested by the hesitations unless there is no logical alternative to that call. >2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone consider that >the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? i think that doubling 3d is the only logical alternative. pass is clearly wrong with a strong two bid, and 4d tends to eliminate clubs as a possible strain due to the level of the auction. 4nt is liable to misinterpretation. i do believe that the hesitation before bidding 4h shows real values, as a responder holding something like xx; xxxx; xxx; xxxx would not hesitate before bidding 4h. so yes, i believe that passing 4h is a logical alternative to bidding 4nt, and that the hesitation suggests bidding on instead of passing. put another way, opener has learned nothing about responder's hand by qbidding 4d that he didn't know when responder bid 3h. if he were willing to commit the hand to slam over 4h, then why didn't he simply bid 4nt over 3h? >What does the hesitation after 4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going >through my mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? see above. >3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? nothing, except perhaps report it to the tournament director and have the hand recorded. i would make such a call routinely with the right partners, but then i don't identify my preempts as 'sound,' as this pair did. the tournament director might instruct the pair to change their convention card. but even if there was MI, were you damaged by it? it doesn't appear that way to me. henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 02:04:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:31 +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 BAA26372 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02728 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:09:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F4097.C0B94F8B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:16:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 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> <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > What is wrong with the approach to psyches you are espousing is that > > partnership understanding is being treated *differently* in the area of > > psyches, and the Law book does not suggest that at all. > > > +=+ How differently? This is not an argument I have made. Any call > or play is illegal if it contravenes the requirements under Law 40. > Any suggestion that a partnership understanding in the area of > psychics may be treated 'differently' will derive from the explicit > mention in Law 75B. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes differently. I have not yet received an answer what is the difference between a psyche and a forgotten alert. Both fall short of "prior announcement", so both should be banned by L40A. Yet you seem to want to ban only the psyche. So, yes, you are treating them differently. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 02:22:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA26763 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:21:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa859846 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:22:11 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-108.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.108]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Critical-MailRouter V2.8a 3/1336647); 03 Jul 2000 02:22:10 Message-ID: <008701bfe4a5$ee6fbbe0$6cde36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:19:48 +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 Tim West-meads wrote: >Grattan Endicott had written: >>..... "The Secretary drew attention to those >> who argued that where an action was stated in the >> laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions >> if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the >> Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, >> 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if >> information deriving from it is used in the auction or >> the play."] > >So the use of bidding boxes is illegal? - Of course not. >Common sense tells us that just because an action is >not explicitly forbidden does not mean it is permitted. L18F states that "Zonal Organisations may authorise different methods of making calls." Peter Gill Zone 7 (where written bidding and Bidding Boxes both seem to be thus authorised) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 02:22:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26373 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02738 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:18:36 +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><39535E69.8515C27@village.uunet.be> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > 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 ~ +=+ > And what do we do until then ? And what do we do if the conflict is not considered significant ? And what do we do if there is no conflict (but just a junior TD asking how to interpret a phrase) ? WE do the interpreting. The senior TD's. BLML even. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 02:49:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:42 +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 BAA26397 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02752 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F4720.F78754FA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:44:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <006401bfe06e$247c1800$41b5f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > > Todd asks: > > >> > >> 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. Why do you call it not-too-logical, Ton ? Yes, opponents are entitled to know this. Yes, it should be on the convention card. But no, that should not make it impossible to call it a psyche. This is what I call the "lethal combination". Some of you refuse to believe that there can be "knowledge" which is disclosable, without making the call a non-psyche. Yet this must be true. Knowledge includes such things as "this person has never ever psyched". Or "this person psyches on average twice a session". It cannot be the mere fact of "knowledge" that renders a call non-psyche. There must be some other element in the definition of a psyche. I believe that the systemic catching is the best area to look for such an element. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 02:56:34 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:56:34 +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 CAA26852 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:56:25 +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 138n2V-00078I-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:56:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:55:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge>, Noel & Pam writes >Yes to all except 4 - this is a common occurrence here, especially at >pairs - some clubs here have an informal rule that passed in hands will be >redealt - people pay for 24-27 boards and clubs don't like to waste the >punters money. > The punter in fourth seat exercised his bridge judgement and passed. That is a valid bridge decision for which he paid his money. It serves the players in the first 3 seats right for not playing mini no-trump, Apart from Law 22A "If no player has bid, ... There *shall* not be a redeal. The UK Bridge Club which tried to change its rules to allow redeals received a letter from the EBU. "Sirs, Your club no longer plays duplicate contract bridge, please return your master point licence faithfully ..." >Personally, I wouldn't redeal a board where anyone of the players had a hand >in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat that I would open - 11+HCP or 10 and a 6 card >major. Pearson points rule for 4th seat openings. > >regards, >Noel &/or Pamela >----- Original Message ----- >From: "anne_jones" >To: "BLML" >Sent: 30 June 2000 3:26 >Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > > >> >> ----- 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 >> >> > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 03:41:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26403 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02756 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:48:57 +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: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >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. > I am calling those things that are based on agreements, non-psyches. > >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: > I am explicitely stating that those are not psyches. That is what I mean by calling it axiomatic. > [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. > There is no use for a word psyches if the reasoning of some people is going to be : Psyches are allowed. Psyches that meet some criteria are banned. All psyches meet those criteria. All I am saying is that there MUST be a set of actions, non-empty, and not banned. I am calling the members of that set psyches. I choose not to call the banned actions psyches. Therefor, psyches cannot be banned. Call it an axiom. Now let's get back to defining psyches. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 03:45:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:35 +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 BAA26384 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02742 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 15:35:24 +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: Psyches, another try References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > [Zia snipped] > > 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. > I find this a step forward. It tries to define psyches more clearly. However, I don't think it would work. We are trying to get into a situation where all "knowledge" about psyches be disclosed. (I have recently decided to use the word knowledge in stead of understanding, agreement and experience, to sow that we are not yet certain under which of the Legal categories it would fall) I hope you will agree that this is where we should try to get to. This means that if I have psyched a 1He opening in 3rd in the past, and it was on 2HCP with short hearts, that is "knowledge" which should be disclosed to opponents. If I have done it twice, that too should be disclosed. At some point you are saying that this knowledge leads to a "system" rather than a psyche, just because I have never thrown in a 23 count? You have explained a number of possible hands on which Zia opens 1NT. I have given a number of hands on which I have opened 1He in third. It turns out that all these psyches fall into a 0-4, 2-3 hearts category. I find it hard to imagine a hand on which it would be wise to open 1He, outside those bounds. Indeed, 5-9 is just playing with fire, and 5 cards hearts is not really a gross misstatement. So you are banning my psyches just because there is more precise knowledge about them ? Then you are banning them because I have done them before. And I don't want to see a rule that bans psyches just because they have happened before. That reduces to the ACBL-once-a-lifetime. There must be some other criterium by which to define a psyche. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 04:00:57 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 04:00:57 +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 EAA26961 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 04:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 10846 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 17:59:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.1.199) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 17:59:04 -0000 Message-ID: <395F833C.4D39D370@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 21:00:29 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ton kooijman CC: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling: contested claim References: <003001bfe201$fce56540$abb5f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2C8192E2019E1D3CA585F95C" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------2C8192E2019E1D3CA585F95C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is a balance between "lazy" claim and "lawyer's appeal....... There can be - or it deems to the defender - a trump promotion or any reasonable situation , when the defender contests the claim. An experienced TD must manage it diligent !!!!! And I emphasize - every case itself but a general approach. I don't like a PP against the appellants , but only if it was a gross anti-bridge idea.. Maybe an agreed approach should be "inserted" in the CoP. ?? Dany 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. > 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 > > > > --------------2C8192E2019E1D3CA585F95C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is a balance between "lazy" claim and "lawyer's appeal.......

There can be - or it deems to the defender - a trump promotion or any
reasonable situation , when the defender contests the claim. An experienced TD
must manage it diligent !!!!! And I emphasize - every case itself but a general approach.

I don't like a PP against the appellants , but only if it was a gross anti-bridge idea..

Maybe an agreed approach should be "inserted" in the CoP.  ??

Dany

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.
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 <Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA>
To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au <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
>
>

--------------2C8192E2019E1D3CA585F95C-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 04:10:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA27003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 04:10:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA26998 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 04:10:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03874 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:08:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:06:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Player's obligation to protect himself from MI Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Schipol case is one example which raises the issue of when an experienced player should be expected to protect himself from possible MI, usually by asking about unalerted calls. Here's another case; this is modified from what happened at the table, but I have thought about the issues. S dealer, E-W vul South holds Axx Qxx AKxx Txx. South is a good player, the other three intermediate. S W N E 1D X 1H X P 1S P 2S P P P East comes down with 4-1-4-4 distribution. She intended the double as takeout, which is alertable in the ACBL; however, many intermediate players think that this is standard. West has a normal minimum takeout double. E-W are not at the level at which they should be penalized for a CPU under the Rule of Coincidence. However, the failure to alert damaged South, who would have made a support redouble to show three-card support had he been informed that the double was not for penalty; this would have allowed North, who held five hearts, to compete to 3H for a better result. Does South lose his right to redress because he didn't ask about the unalerted double? I think the guidelines should be that a player is not damaged by a failure to alert or misexplanation if he has not attempted to clarify it in the following three cases. 1. If the meaning or alertability of the call should be obvious to a player at that level even without the alert. For example, there was a case at the 1994 World Championships in which a player claimed damage because a Lightner double was not alerted. While the alertability of a Lightner double was ambiguous at the time, a player in the World Open Pairs is expected to recognize one, and the AC properly kept the deposit. In contrast, the Schipol case does not meet this standard. 2. If the player knows from his own hand that an alert was needed. For example, a player holding KQxxxx of diamonds after the auction 1H-P-4D knows that 4D is not preemptive, and should ask to ascertain that it is a splinter, and then double. (This should not be considered "asking questions for partner's benefit".) 3. If the explanation is absurd, usually indicating that the explainer has forgotten the auction rather than the agreement. I have encountered the following in tournaments: S W N 1C 1S 2H! explained as weak jump shift; South didn't notice that it wasn't a jump. S W N 1C P 2S! explained as intermediate jump overcall; South forgot who opened. In these cases, East can ask for a clarification, which may help South remember the auction, but if he doesn't ask, he can't claim to be misinformed on the first auction when he raises to 3S and North doubles with a 12-count. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 04:28:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:51 +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 BAA26406 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02760 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F52BC.FBFDCA30@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 16:33:32 +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: Alert? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Response from the De Wael School (DwS) David Stevenson wrote: > > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > Oh dear indeed. When both players have forgotten the system, what is the system ? One way out of this would of course be to keep forgetting and just play on as if 1NT is natural. We shall not encourage this manner. > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > I am presuming a 15-17 meaning would not be alertable, while "both minors" would be ? I am further assuming that 2He over 15-17 is transfer to spades ? > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? YES Partner thinks he is transferring. Anything other than explaining it as transfer means you are awakening him to his error. So you alert. > [2] Do you complete the transfer? NO. More difficult. Partner did not alert 1NT, and this is UI to you. If you had not realised that 1NT is actually the minors, that UI helps you not. But you have now realised, so the non-alert has become important. A useful hint would be what you would do with screans. You would be happy to remember just in time that 1NT is minors and be happy to pass 2He. So You PASS. Strange : first alert, then pass, but yes. > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? NO. You now know that partner intends to show hearts. So you do not awaken him by suddenly explaining it as spades (which it never is now). You do not alert. > [4] Do you complete the transfer? YES. Since you cannot make acceptable that it was not the alert that awakened you, you should now bid on as if you had shown 15-17 all along, that 2H is transfer, and you should bid 2Sp. Of course this is a very strange bidding sequence. 1Cl-1NT(minors)-pass-2He(not alerted)-pass-2Sp(???). Partner may well be able to work that one out. He will be able to assume from your bidding that you thought 1NT was 15-17, and that you interpreted 2He in this way. I know what you are going to say. I am stating that I should not, in any manner, tell partner that he was wrong in his explanation of my 1NT bid, so I should not alert 2He. Yet by bidding 2Sp I tell him that as well. Now of course you can never win them all. You must make a call. You must make a call that is not based on UI. If the call wakes up, then that must be all right. Besides, why should partner now suddenly conclude you have 15-17 ? Why could you not have something like a 3055, asking partner to choose between any of the remaining suits ? It must be clear to anyone that you should bid 2Sp. That is the thing you would do without the UI. When you do alert, and bid 2Sp, he will know for sure. So you don't alert, and bid 2Sp. Now it's up to him. > > --------- > > Now, a request: there is an authority about this case in England: I > shall quote it in about three days time. *Please* give any answers > without looking at it or quoting it, because one of the questions asked > about this was whether people's views are changed by reading the > authority. The point being that it has been suggested the authority is > ambiguous and should be re-written. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 04:35:10 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:51 +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 BAA26411 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02764 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:10:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F5600.56AC8638@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 16:47:28 +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: Alert? References: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > > (f) In situations where both you and your partner appear to > have forgotten the "system", it may be that it is not really the > "system". There is likely to be a reason for your simultaneous > memory lapses, e.g. your new agreement (that 1NT is for the > minors) has only just been adopted. In this case, it could be > argued that, although you have agreed to play the gadget, it > isn't your "system" until you both can remember that you're > actually playing it! In which case 2H is Alertable. > On the nail Peter !!! The answer as to whether or not to alert 2He (first case - partner has not alerted) seems to depend, according to many, on the systemic meaning of 1NT in the first place. But how can you really know what 1NT means ? You have already given two meanings to it, and maybe your partner has a third one in mind (maybe he thinks it's 12-14, perhaps not alertable either). So how can you be certain what 2He actually means ? You are then in an impossible situation. You are required to tell the opponents the system, but you don't know it yourself. What can then be better than to avoid giving partner UI, by alerting and explaining exactly as he has started the explanation. > (g) The same Aussie Recorder convinced me that you > MUST alert 2H if either of you has EVER forgotten the > same bid before (since the opponents must be fully > informed of partnership experience as well as system). > I would add a rider that it is relevant to check exactly > what is required to be alerted according to the SO. > > >[2] Do you complete the transfer? > > Unlike most BLMers, again I think that a complex can of worms > has been opened. Without the UI provided by partner's failure > to alert, i.e. if partner had have alerted 1NT, surely I would > raise 2H to 3H or 4H, since I have woken myself up to the fact > that I have more hearts and many more points than expected > by a partner who has bypassed our logical playing spots of > 2C and 2D. Partner may even have psyched 2H with big minor > support! To consider Pass or 2S is IMO ridiculous, since they > were not amongst my original options. The hands might be: > > Me CHO > AQ10x Kxx > Kxx QJ10xxx > Axx xx > Kxx xx > > 4H will usually make 10 or 11 tricks, and partner might reject > a 3H Game Try which he would interpret as perhaps a good > 1255 shape, wrongly devaluing his SK on the above hand. > Therefore I think I should bid 4H. > > That's not exactly what everyone else concluded, but if I'm > wrong, it won't be the first time for me on BLML this month. > Perhaps Phil has a point here. If I remember that I have misbid, then the non-alert by partner is a piece of UI. Not using this UI would imply bidding 4He. > Partner has bid 2H opposite a hand like xxx, - , Kxxxx, Qxxxx. > I have 11 extra HCP and three extra hearts. Pass would be > insane, on total tricks principles (we have at least nine hearts) > for those who still think that game is unlikely. Still, perhaps I > have to accept that Pass is a LA, since so many of my peers > on BLML have bid it! Perhaps this means that at the table I > should consider whether to Pass, a call which I personally > would never have made! > Your peers on BLML have no idea. FOUR HEARTS it is now. > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > >bidding is the same. > > > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > > No, not under EBU rules, since 2H is "natural, to play". > In Australia the fact that 2H suggests shortage in both minors > may make 2H Alertable, by the way. > > >[4] Do you complete the transfer? > > No. If my 4333 16 count has nice AQ's over RHO's points, > I bid 4H. If I have too many queens and jacks, only 3H. > Here you seem to forget Peter, that you have not independently worked out that you have misbid. You should continue under the impression that your first bid was correct, and thus bid 2Sp. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 06:34:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:34:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.knology.net (IDENT:qmailr@smtp1.knology.net [24.214.63.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA27341 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19174 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 20:33:48 -0000 Received: from user-24-214-6-217.knology.net (HELO knology) (24.214.6.217) by smtp1.knology.net with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 20:33:48 -0000 Message-ID: <000c01bfe464$d72d5c80$d906d618@knology.net> From: "Robert Lake" To: Subject: Need help with conflicting advice Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:33:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At yesterday's game, A pair opened a 15-17 notrump that was overcalled by 2 Bob Lake 3206 Covered Bridge Drive Montgomery, AL 36116 Voice: (334) 279-8185 FAX: (530) 463-9528 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 06:44:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:44:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.knology.net (IDENT:qmailr@smtp1.knology.net [24.214.63.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA27385 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:44:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19373 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 20:43:43 -0000 Received: from user-24-214-6-217.knology.net (HELO knology) (24.214.6.217) by smtp1.knology.net with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 20:43:43 -0000 Message-ID: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> From: "Robert Lake" To: Subject: Help with conflicting alert advice Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 15:43:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In yesterday's game, South opened 1NT (15-17), overcalled by East with 2S (alerted as DONT showing a weakish hand with Spades). South bid 3D and there were 3 passes to close the auction. Later (I don't know if it was before the play of the hand or after), East asked North if there had been a failure to alert the 3D bid as nonforcing. North and South indicated that they had no nonstandard agreement and, therefore, the bid was not alertable. A look at Truscott's Dictionary of Bidding shows that the 3D bid is nonforcing (3 of a major would have been forcing). The ACBL Alert Chart shows that 3 of a minor over an opening 1NT is alertable if nonforcing, but (I'm sure?) they mean a direct 3D call, not one over a competitive intervening bid. A call by South to ACBL resulted in the advice that the 3D nonforcing bid was, indeed, alertable. Who's right? (I know this is a bore to those outside ACBLland, but I really am interested in the answer) Thanks from a long-time lurker, Bob Bob Lake 3206 Covered Bridge Drive Montgomery, AL 36116 Voice: (334) 279-8185 FAX: (530) 463-9528 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 07:53:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:53:11 +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 HAA27583 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:53:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA02807 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 22:52:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 22:52 +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: <008701bfe4a5$ee6fbbe0$6cde36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Peter Gill wrote: > >So the use of bidding boxes is illegal? - Of course not. > L18F states that "Zonal Organisations may authorise > different methods of making calls." > Indeed. But L18A-E make no reference to spoken bidding so bidding boxes are not a different method (however a language in which the correct form would be eg "Spades, multiple of 3") might require the permission granted in L18F. But this is mere dalliance, the mechanisms of bidding (spoken, written, verbal, typed, tapped, or by sign language) are implicitly, rather than explicitly permitted. Just as implicit (not explicit) in the laws is the freedom to bid based on partnership understanding provided the disclosure (and regulatory) requirements of the SO are met. As far as I can tell it would be legal, if reprehensible, for an SO to rule that "No conventions may be used in an auction where one of the bids is a psych. The penalty for such illegal use will be an adjusted score of 0%/90% or -25 IMPs".* That should meet the objectives of the anti-psych brigade. *Of course it is difficult to imagine that an SO would wish to breach the spirit of the laws in such a manner - but maybe in some remote backwater it would go down well. > Zone 7 (where written bidding and Bidding Boxes both > seem to be thus authorised) Although one wonders if they actually were. Not that it matters. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 07:54:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA27603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:54:01 +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 HAA27597 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:53:54 +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 RAA14555; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:39:23 -0400 To: "Robert Lake" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:43 PM -0500 7/2/00, Robert Lake wrote: >In yesterday's game, South opened 1NT (15-17), overcalled by East with 2S >(alerted as DONT showing a weakish hand with Spades). South bid 3D and >there were 3 passes to close the auction. > >Later (I don't know if it was before the play of the hand or after), East >asked North if there had been a failure to alert the 3D bid as nonforcing. >North and South indicated that they had no nonstandard agreement and, >therefore, the bid was not alertable. >A look at Truscott's Dictionary of Bidding shows that the 3D bid is >nonforcing (3 of a major would have been forcing). The ACBL Alert Chart >shows that 3 of a minor over an opening 1NT is alertable if nonforcing, but >(I'm sure?) they mean a direct 3D call, not one over a competitive >intervening bid. > >A call by South to ACBL resulted in the advice that the 3D nonforcing bid >was, indeed, alertable. The Alert Chart and Alert Procedure pamphlet don't cover this situation. Therefore, it should be governed by the general rule on natural calls, "Treatments that show unusual strength or shape must be Alerted." The standard meaning of this 3D bid is forcing, and if South has a weak hand, the opponents are entitled to know. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 08:22:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:22:44 +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 IAA27665 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:22:31 +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 138s80-000JU9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 22:22:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:10:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200006302226.SAA22125@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200006302226.SAA22125@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 owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri Jun 30 00:15:56 2000 >> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:32:15 +0100 >> From: David Stevenson >> 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 fail to see how you can rule anything illegal under L40A. What >you can do is rule that a call or play _fails to meet the conditions_ >of L40A. If that's so, then it might or might not violate some other >law or regulation, but L40A does not itself _prohibit_ anything, so >by definition it cannot be violated. OK, have it your own way. But do not say "by definition" when what you mean is that you object to a principle that not all of us agree to. What you mean is by a non-universal Willner definition, or in other words, your opinion. As far as I am concerned, when a Law says you may make a call subject to certain conditions, then if you break the conditions but still make the call you are in breach of the Law. >The most likely laws to be violated when the conditions of L40A are not >met are L40B and L75C. (Was "L40A" was a misprint for L40B?) No, the most likely Law to be violated when the conditions of L40A are not met is L40A. -- 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 Mon Jul 3 08:22:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:22:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27666 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:22:31 +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 138s80-000Gcm-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 22:22:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:19:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? References: <200006301702.KAA05202@mailhub.irvine.com> <200006302218.PAA09508@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200006302218.PAA09508@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I wrote: > >> South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty >> card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he >> likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. >> >> (1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is >> on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to >> exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the >> suit to be led at the next trick? >> >> (2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer >> ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now >> does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? >> >> I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely >> clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. > >OK, I got three private responses, all of whom agree with me that the >answer is yes. > >The reason I was wondering was this: The situation (one defender has a >penalty card, the other one is on lead) comes up with some frequency. >When we call the TD and he or she explains the options, declarer often >selects the option to let leader lead anything they want and keep the >card as a penalty card. At that point, the director usually says, >"OK, the card remains a penalty card that must be played at the first >legal opportunity" or something to that effect; then the TD usually >walks away, figuring their job is done. Are our TD's handling this >situation correctly? Should they wait around the table until the >penalty card is played, so that if leader retains or regains the lead, >the TD can inform declarer that they have options again? Should they >at least tell declarer, before they walk away, that "if the defender >wins this trick, or later gets the lead, and the penalty card is still >there, you will have the same options that I just gave you"? > >The way things actually happen, it makes it appear that once the >declarer selects the "lead anything you want" option, that's the last >time they get to select an option, and the only restrictions after >that are that the penalty card must be led or played at the first >legal opportunity. No competent Director leaves the table while the penalty card is still on it. Of course the Director must stay there making sure players have all their options. -- 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 Mon Jul 3 08:22:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:22:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27667 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:22:32 +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 138s80-000Gcl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 22:22:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:17:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop> <005701bfe2f3$fcc89f80$3a2d37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <005701bfe2f3$fcc89f80$3a2d37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" >> 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. > >I don't see how banning conventions after 8-10 range 1-level bids is >reasonable but banning them over a different range would be unreasonable. An unreasonable regulation would be that conventions may be played over a 1NT opening only if the range of it was 30+ HCP. >[4] It would be possible to make a regulation that was not intended by the >lawmakers but is equally reasonable to one that suits the current >fashion/style/wim of the regulation makers but has been condoned by WBF (see >[3]). > >In my opinion the WBF statement in [3] was myopic. > >> [5] Therefore it is not legal. > >My arguement was more that it is possible to make a regulation that could >not be the intention of the law makers but if they say that such regulations >are part of there intention then so be it. ??????? I think you have just changed your argument, Wayne. I have no interest in arguing whether the WBF/EBU/ACBL position is reasonable of itself, and I think you are now arguing that. All I am saying is that where there is an approach that is checked by an NCBO with the WBF and they say it is acceptable then it is acceptable. Not to you, perhaps, but there is no reason why an NCBO should not follow the approach. >To my mind banning conventions over any range 1NT bid is equally a terrible >regulation. As I say, that has nothing to do with this argument. >I also don't see how it is a misuse to do what has been specifically >allowed. > >If it is reasonable to restrict conventions over one range of bids then >surely it is equally reasonable to restrict them over another. It merely >caters to a different style or fashion there is nothing inherent in the game >that makes one range more reasonable than another - you try them all and >choose the one that suits your style and produces the 'best' results, most >enjoyment or whatever. I would prefer to regulate the game for the majority of players. -- 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 Mon Jul 3 09:23:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:40:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27749 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:40:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (unverified [209.142.71.48]) by legend.idworld.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Jul 2000 17:40:34 -0500 Message-ID: <395FC4CB.C9461FEC@txdirect.net> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 17:40:11 -0500 From: Albert Lochli Reply-To: biigal@idworld.net Organization: D16ACBL Internet Coordinator X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Lake , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice References: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ACBL has posted an (dated Sept 97) ACBL Alert chart at: http://209.45.144.70/info/charts/alertchart.htm They also have posted ACBL Alert Procedures (dated June 1998) at http://209.45.144.70/info/charts/alertproc.htm In the former (Dated Sept 1997) No place on the alert chart is any mention made of any call in response to invention over a NT opening. An unimpeded non-forcing response of 3 of a minor is alertable on this chart. However this does not consider any intervention. In the later (June 1998) No place on the alert chart is any mention made of any call in response to invention over a NT opening. An unimpeded response of 3 of a suit iif not forcing is alertable in this discussion and chart. However this does not consider any intervention. Truscott's Dictionary of Bidding is not a part of, mentioned in nor referred to in the ACBL Alert regulations and cannot be allowed to determine wether a bid is alertable or not. It is not germane. Otherwise if the 3 Diamond call is "natural" and an offer to play in the denomination stated -- as this alert chart is written -- it should not be alertable. But we have however entered a grey area where the intrepretation can vary. What is the norm for such a call in your area?? If it is always forcing - or considered forcing by (75%) I would give a courtesy alert -- but as the chart is constructed it is an ambigious call. The weak 2S call should not be so all powerful as to silence all continuances. The Lebensohl convention is used by more experienced players to resolve this discrepency. Were one playing Lebensohl the 3 of a minor would be forcing and would be alertable. That is because of the other alternatives available in the convention. Robert Lake wrote: > > In yesterday's game, South opened 1NT (15-17), overcalled by East with 2S > (alerted as DONT showing a weakish hand with Spades). South bid 3D and > there were 3 passes to close the auction. > > Later (I don't know if it was before the play of the hand or after), East > asked North if there had been a failure to alert the 3D bid as nonforcing. > North and South indicated that they had no nonstandard agreement and, > therefore, the bid was not alertable. > > A look at Truscott's Dictionary of Bidding shows that the 3D bid is > nonforcing (3 of a major would have been forcing). The ACBL Alert Chart > shows that 3 of a minor over an opening 1NT is alertable if nonforcing, but > (I'm sure?) they mean a direct 3D call, not one over a competitive > intervening bid. > > A call by South to ACBL resulted in the advice that the 3D nonforcing bid > was, indeed, alertable. > > Who's right? > > (I know this is a bore to those outside ACBLland, but I really am interested > in the answer) > > Thanks from a long-time lurker, > > Bob > > Bob Lake > 3206 Covered Bridge Drive > Montgomery, AL 36116 > > Voice: (334) 279-8185 > FAX: (530) 463-9528 -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net - Phone: (210) 829-4274 PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - http://www.acbl-d16.org Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - http://www.cbf.ca/GBL/gblCLUBS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 09:45:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:45:24 +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 JAA27939 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:45:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.236]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000702234506.GIE381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:45:06 +0100 Message-ID: <002301bfe480$93fc5e40$ec04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:52:26 +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: "Robert Lake" To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 9:43 PM Subject: Help with conflicting alert advice > In yesterday's game, South opened 1NT (15-17), overcalled by East with 2S > (alerted as DONT showing a weakish hand with Spades). South bid 3D and > there were 3 passes to close the auction. > > Later (I don't know if it was before the play of the hand or after), East > asked North if there had been a failure to alert the 3D bid as nonforcing. > North and South indicated that they had no nonstandard agreement and, > therefore, the bid was not alertable. > The EBU L&EC addressed this sequence about 2 years ago. It was agreed that 3D is alertable ONLY IF IT IS FORCING. Similary 3C or 3H.If there have been any changes since then I'm sure DWS will tell us. Of course your own regulating body might have quite different rules.It seems to me that those that play Lehbensohl would play it differently form those who don't, but there, that is the rule in EBU/WBU land. Anne > > A look at Truscott's Dictionary of Bidding shows that the 3D bid is > nonforcing (3 of a major would have been forcing). The ACBL Alert Chart > shows that 3 of a minor over an opening 1NT is alertable if nonforcing, but > (I'm sure?) they mean a direct 3D call, not one over a competitive > intervening bid. > > A call by South to ACBL resulted in the advice that the 3D nonforcing bid > was, indeed, alertable. > > Who's right? > > (I know this is a bore to those outside ACBLland, but I really am interested > in the answer) > > Thanks from a long-time lurker, > > Bob > > Bob Lake > 3206 Covered Bridge Drive > Montgomery, AL 36116 > > Voice: (334) 279-8185 > FAX: (530) 463-9528 > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 09:51:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:51:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA27963 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:51:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca121890 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:50:54 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-230.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.230]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Emotive-MailRouter V2.8a 9/528092); 03 Jul 2000 09:50:53 Message-ID: <004c01bfe4e4$9d66ce20$e6e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:47:50 +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: >.....And I don't want to see a rule that bans psyches just >because they have happened before. That reduces to the >ACBL-once-a-lifetime. > >There must be some other criterium by which to define a >psyche. > I think that this "ACBL-once-in-a-lifetime" phrase is merely rumour. The ACBL's policy on Psychs is clearly set out in two of their publications, viz *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (1994)* and a manual for Club Directors called 'Duplicate Decisions'. The latter states on Pages 32-34: "PSYCHS DEFINITION: A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. ...... "ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS:.......When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are called to the attention of the Director,......." There's lots more, including a guide to how to distinguish a disruptive psych from a tactical bid. Absolutely zilch (nothing) about "psychs in a lifetime" though. The Encyclopedia is similar but has strict copyright provisions, so I won't quote from it directly unless an American BLMLer is kind enough to obtain permission for me from the ACBL. On pages 352 to 354, it gives an almost identical definition of a psyche, and says (amongst masses of material) that ACBL policy is that if you psyche up to once a month, then no problem, but a second psyche by the same player in the same event, even in a vastly different bidding situation, is a problem due to the implicit partnership understanding which has been created. The 1994 Encyclopedia seems to go from 1978 to 1991 in its detail of ACBL Psyche Policy; my Duplicate Decisions manual was purchased (new) in 1999, has no date inside the book but seems to be up-to-date. I humbly suggest that interested Americans buy or borrow a copy of these two publications. The official ACBL position stated therein seems to me to be consistent with Gary Blaiss' remarks which someone posted recently on either BLML or rgb. Peter Gill Australia (OK to email me privately about copyright). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 11:08:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:08:33 +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 LAA28127 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:08:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 138uic-000EKI-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:08:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:06:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Tim West-meads wrote: >> >[Zia snipped] > >> >> 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. >> > >I find this a step forward. It tries to define psyches more >clearly. > >However, I don't think it would work. > >We are trying to get into a situation where all "knowledge" >about psyches be disclosed. >(I have recently decided to use the word knowledge in stead >of understanding, agreement and experience, to sow that we >are not yet certain under which of the Legal categories it >would fall) >I hope you will agree that this is where we should try to >get to. > >This means that if I have psyched a 1He opening in 3rd in >the past, and it was on 2HCP with short hearts, that is >"knowledge" which should be disclosed to opponents. >If I have done it twice, that too should be disclosed. >At some point you are saying that this knowledge leads to a >"system" rather than a psyche, just because I have never >thrown in a 23 count? > >You have explained a number of possible hands on which Zia >opens 1NT. > >I have given a number of hands on which I have opened 1He in >third. >It turns out that all these psyches fall into a 0-4, 2-3 >hearts category. I find it hard to imagine a hand on which >it would be wise to open 1He, outside those bounds. Indeed, >5-9 is just playing with fire, and 5 cards hearts is not >really a gross misstatement. > >So you are banning my psyches just because there is more >precise knowledge about them ? Then you are banning them >because I have done them before. > >And I don't want to see a rule that bans psyches just >because they have happened before. That reduces to the >ACBL-once-a-lifetime. > >There must be some other criterium by which to define a >psyche. > > If Herman opens 1H I'll treat it as a 1H opener. The fact he's Belgian and stupid (de facto) doesn't mean to say that I agree with his idea of a 1H opener. I *do not* have an agreement with him in this respect. How can we get busted as a result? cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 11:10:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:10:31 +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 LAA28139 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 138ukZ-000EQe-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:10:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 02:08:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Alert? References: <014601bfe3de$2dae3660$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <395F5600.56AC8638@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <395F5600.56AC8638@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <395F5600.56AC8638@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >> >> >[4] Do you complete the transfer? >> >> No. If my 4333 16 count has nice AQ's over RHO's points, >> I bid 4H. If I have too many queens and jacks, only 3H. >> > >Here you seem to forget Peter, that you have not >independently worked out that you have misbid. You should >continue under the impression that your first bid was >correct, and thus bid 2Sp. > I concur cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 12:59:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:59:32 +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 MAA28392 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:59:26 +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 MAA08444 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:56:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 12:56:29 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Alert? To: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:55:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 03/07/2000 12:54:02 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: "LHO You RHO CHO 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H response to 1NT is not. [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? [2] Do you complete the transfer? Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The bidding is the same. [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? [4] Do you complete the transfer?" [snip] This is an interesting case, since whether or not pard alerts, UI has been passed. In cases [1] and [2] it is permissible for you to realise that 1NT should have been conventional. What is UI is that pard has simultaneously forgotten your convention, and intends 2H as a transfer. So you do not alert the 2H bid, and you also Pass it. Furthermore, if 2H is the final contract, before the opening lead you summon the TD, and explain to the TD and opponents that 1NT should have been alerted as showing the minors. (The opponents are entitled to your agreements, even if neither your hand nor pard's hand correspond to them.) In cases [3] and [4] your partner has given UI to you that your 1NT is systemically for minors. You still do not alert 2H - since 2H is still systemically a natural, terminal call. However, you must keep bidding on the assumption that 2H is transfer to spades, and call 2S (or super-accept if your hand and system permit). Does bidding over pard's terminal 2H give UI to pard? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 16:50:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28805 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13903h-000LHr-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: <007501bfe4bb$4434ee00$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><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> <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> <395F4097.C0B94F8B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:48:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:16 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ 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 ~ +=+ > > Yes differently. > > I have not yet received an answer what is the difference > between a psyche and a forgotten alert. Both fall short of > "prior announcement", so both should be banned by L40A. Yet > you seem to want to ban only the psyche. > > So, yes, you are treating them differently. > +=+ In principle an alert reminds opponent of something already announced. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 16:51:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:51:00 +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 QAA28824 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13903n-000LHr-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:27 +0100 Message-ID: <007901bfe4bb$47623920$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:40:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 10:52 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > In-Reply-To: <008701bfe4a5$ee6fbbe0$6cde36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> > Peter Gill wrote: > > >So the use of bidding boxes is illegal? - Of course not. > > L18F states that "Zonal Organisations may authorise > > different methods of making calls." > > > > Indeed. But L18A-E make no reference to spoken bidding so bidding boxes > are not a different method > > +=+ Bidding boxes are specified to be 'special conditions' (Law 80E) ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 16:51:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:51:00 +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 QAA28821 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13903l-000LHr-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:26 +0100 Message-ID: <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:32:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:48 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > Now let's get back to defining psyches. > +=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in the law book. Any call is subject to regulation if it is conventional. Any understanding as to initial action is subject to regulation if it may relate to a hand a king or more below average strength. These powers of regulation are unrestricted and extend to prohibition. Use of these powers is found, for example, in the WBF Systems Policy and the EBL Systems Policy; also the EBU Orange Book and, no doubt, other regulations. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 16:50:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28803 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13903g-000LHr-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:20 +0100 Message-ID: <007401bfe4bb$433928e0$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><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> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 06:47:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:18 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ 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 ~ +=+ > > > > And what do we do until then ? > +=+ Follow the guidance of your NCBO. The NCBO seeks the interim ruling of the Zonal Organization +=+ > > And what do we do if the conflict is not considered > significant ? > +=+ Remain with the ruling of the Zonal Authority+=+ > > And what do we do if there is no conflict (but just a junior > TD asking how to interpret a phrase) ? > +=+ Pass on the guidance you have already received+=+ > > WE do the interpreting. The senior TD's. BLML even. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > +=+ The final statement is just a little bumptious. TDs are subject to the authority of the organizations they serve, and these in turn to that of the bodies to which they are affiliated. Blml is a discussion forum and it has no authority to interpret whatsoever; at times it disseminates error and speculation, which is why officers of committees on which I serve remind its readers from time to time that the place to take their problems is their NCBO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 16:51:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28838 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13903o-000LHr-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:28 +0100 Message-ID: <007a01bfe4bb$481adac0$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <005c01bfde22$bed5cc00$382e37d2@laptop><005701bfe2f3$fcc89f80$3a2d37d2@laptop> Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:29 +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: Saturday, July 01, 2000 2:17 AM Subject: Re: Condoning Regulating Conventions L40D > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson" > --------------- \x/ --------------- > I think you have just changed your argument, Wayne. I have no > interest in arguing whether the WBF/EBU/ACBL position is reasonable of > itself, and I think you are now arguing that. > > All I am saying is that where there is an approach that is checked by > an NCBO with the WBF and they say it is acceptable then it is > acceptable. Not to you, perhaps, but there is no reason why an NCBO > should not follow the approach. > > >To my mind banning conventions over any range 1NT bid is equally a terrible > >regulation. > > As I say, that has nothing to do with this argument. > > >I also don't see how it is a misuse to do what has been specifically > >allowed. > > +=+ We sometimes seem to lose sight of the fact that the NCBO's actions are the corporate will of its members. So, for that matter, are the actions of Zones and the WBF (but the members of these are not individuals). So when the NCBO uses a power it is given to stop Wayne opening 1NT on, say, 8-11 HCP, his complaint is with his fellows in membership of the NCBO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 16:50:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28815 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.54] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13903k-000LHr-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:50:24 +0100 Message-ID: <007701bfe4bb$45c7c300$545408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:08:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > Tim West-meads wrote: > > ------------- \x/ --------- > > So something like. A psyche is illegal if, on being told that partner has > > psyched one can guess their hand within narrow boundaries. > > > > I find this a step forward. It tries to define psyches more > clearly. > > However, I don't think it would work. > +=+ The line is not good enough. It is illegal to have an undisclosed partnership understanding that you will regularly violate your announced agreements in a particular situation, for example, even if the nature of the violation is to be widely variable or random. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 19:16:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:16:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f154.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.154]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA29621 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 65527 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jul 2000 09:16:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20000703091603.65526.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.152.182.63 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:16:03 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.152.182.63] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:16:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Herman De Wael > > Now let's get back to defining psyches. > > >+=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in >the law book. Where? The law happens to restrict certain actions based on the idea of concealed partnership agreements. Some of those actions are what we call psyches. The law does not define nor directly prohibit psyches. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 19:25:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f274.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA29705 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 73707 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jul 2000 09:24:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000703092458.73706.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.152.182.63 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:24:58 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.152.182.63] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:24:58 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > 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. > >That is a totally different question, Todd. > >Why should it be illegal to open very weak hands if you >include no means of systemically getting away with it >yourself ? > >You are taking a risk, after all. Supposedly it ruins your opponents' enjoyment of the game. For most people this is probably true. I see no reason to forbid haphazzard bidding at the higher levels. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 19:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:30:40 +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 TAA29740 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:30:03 +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 IAA13209 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:16:33 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <3FXA0SR8>; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:13:49 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Not yet a penalty card? Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:25:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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. 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? The DK becomes a penalty card immediately, with all penalty provisions going with it; i.e. East may use the fact that West must play the DK at the first legal opportunity, but any other information is UI (L50D1); declarer may require or forbid diamonds to East when he is on lead and the DK is still on the table (L50D2), and West must play the DK at the first legal opportunity (L50D1). But (L50D1) the lead penalty which West has (and which terminates when either West goes off lead or West has only diamonds left) takes precedence over the obligation to play the DK, hence West still may not play diamonds, unless he has nothing else (and then it must be the DK). In short, it may seem that the penalty provisions for the penalty card are not in effect yet, but that is only because the first legal opportunity for West to play the DK has not yet arrived; he must first comply with the lead penalty. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 19:40:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA29795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:40:24 +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 TAA29790 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA26380 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:39:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:39 +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: <007901bfe4bb$47623920$545408c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Bidding boxes are specified to be > 'special conditions' (Law 80E) ~ G ~ +=+ So that's where the reference is hiding (sorry I missed it). Substitute "bidding boards" (the ones in the middle of the table) "or computer keyboards" for "bidding boxes" and re-read. And just in case these are also explicitly permitted here are a few other things for which I can find no explicit permission. - Using the Milton Work count to evaluate hands - Arrow-switching - Howell movements - Curtain cards - Automatic time penalties (not slow play) - Dealing programmes/machines - Vu-Graphs - Smoking/Drinking bans - Butler scoring And yes several (maybe all of these) have implicit permission in one law or another and I have no wish to consider them illegal. Just to be sure that the truth of the following is acknowledged. Some things are explicitly permitted. Some non-explicitly permitted things are legal. Some things are explicitly forbidden. Some non-forbidden things are illegal. Some things, while not exactly legal/illegal, may be infractions depending on the circumstances of a particular case. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 20:02:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:02:22 +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 UAA29911 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:02:12 +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 LAA10872; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:01:55 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA25977; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:01:54 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:01:53 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 LAA01262; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:01:31 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA05465; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:01:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:01:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200007031001.LAA05465@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge@blakjak.com Subject: Re: Alert? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [2] Do you complete the transfer? > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [4] Do you complete the transfer? A "me too" response, in case you are keeping a tally. My answers are the same as DavidG's. [1] No. Our system is natural. [2] No. UI (partner has forgotten the system) suggests he has spades. [3] No. As [1] [4] Yes. UI (partner's alert) suggests he has hearts, so I should transfer. 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 Jul 3 21:02:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:02:04 +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 VAA00174 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:01:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.184]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24031 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:01:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F5FFE.76E4B048@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 17:30:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling References: <014501bfe3d3$cf7020e0$17d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > Michael Farebrother wrote: > >2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone > >consider that the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" > >slam try over passing 4H? What does the hesitation after > >4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going through my > >mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? > > Is Pass a LA to dbl? No, obviously. To 4D? No. > To 4NT? Not sure. West now has UI from partner's last two > hesitations. It's not impossible that East could have a > 2344 yarborough and have been thinking over the double - > "will I bid my three small hearts?" and over 4D - "can I do > anything except rebid three small?". Thus the UI may suggest > Pass over bidding as well as (more likely) suggesting bidding > over Pass. This may negate the LA consideration. I'd probably > check with more expert TDs if available, with a tendency to > allow the 4NT call. > I have not followed the full thread (just back from London, with 200 messaged - and I've gone through them all already, so you can imagine I have not read them all thoroughly). I have no opinion on this case, but one remark. Hesitator's partner has no LA's on the first two rounds. But on the third ? I'm not so sure. He has bid 4D, which is very strong, and his partner has bid nothing more than 4H. There can now be only one reason for going on. I first ask him why he wants to go to slam. He'll probably say that it is normal to do so. He'll explain that it must be six, if partner has one ace. Then I ask him why he bids 4D in stead of 4NT straight away. I doubt if there can be a good reason. He's not telling partner anything, and he cannot be asking either, because he has not received a reply that is more than minimal. He might convince me that he is trying to find out if there is a grand possible, but I doubt that very much. If there are no LA's to continuing after 4H, why then bid 4Di first ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 21:02:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA00191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:02:07 +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 VAA00175 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:01:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-184.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.184]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24045 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:01:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <395F6160.50941808@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 17:36:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > If we accept this interpretation, and for a moment strip L40A of its > subordinate clauses, we are left with "A player may make any call or play > provided [it] is not based on a partnership understanding." > Yes indeed. L40A says : you can do anything that is not based on PU. L40B says : if you do something bbased on PU, opponents must know about it. These two laws have nothing whatsoever to do with psyches. They just combine to say that opponents must know everything that is PU. You cannot ban a bid on the basis of L40A. You cannot ban a bid on the basis of L40B. You can only award an AS on the basis of L40C. And you can ban on the basis of L40D. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 21:26:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:40 +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 UAA29976 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1393TN-0007x5-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:29:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:26:34 +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> <000501bfe3d2$e6cd1320$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <000501bfe3d2$e6cd1320$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Noel & Pam wrote: >Any Director that made me pass with that hand, even after partner had danced >taps on the table, would lose me from his game... Oh well, that sorts you out then! :) Despite certain inconsistent views with various degrees of shock, I think that the hand is really the sort where one might easily take a view of it, and should not be surprised if different people take quite a different view. >> >>2S P(h) 3S, Green (favoUrable if you're a Yank) >> >> >> >>x >> >>Q9xx >> >>AQ109 >> >>Axxx >> >> >> >>Do you allow a double? -- 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 Mon Jul 3 22:07:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:48 +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 WAA00298 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11542 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:07:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39607D8B.BB055F92@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:48:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <007701bfe4bb$45c7c300$545408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ The line is not good enough. It is illegal > to have an undisclosed partnership > understanding that you will regularly violate > your announced agreements in a particular > situation, for example, even if the nature > of the violation is to be widely variable or > random. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ For the twenty-seventh time : WHICH IS WHY I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DISCLOSE IT !!!!!!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 22:07:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00297 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11516 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:07:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39607D30.614B7DE4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:46:56 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. References: <001001bfd204$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> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> <007401bfe4bb$433928e0$545408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > And what do we do until then ? > > > +=+ Follow the guidance of your NCBO. The NCBO > seeks the interim ruling of the Zonal Organization +=+ > > And what do we do until they say something ? > > And what do we do if the conflict is not considered > > significant ? > > > +=+ Remain with the ruling of the Zonal Authority+=+ > > And what if they too decide the conflict is not considered significant ? > > And what do we do if there is no conflict (but just a junior > > TD asking how to interpret a phrase) ? > > > +=+ Pass on the guidance you have already received+=+ I have received no guidance. Other TD's ask ME for guidance. I believe that in many cases I know the correct interpretation. Even if I have not read anything from the VBL, BBF, EBL, WBF about it. That is what I mean : I make the interpretation. And if that junior TD does not ask me, HE has made the interpretation. > > > > WE do the interpreting. The senior TD's. BLML even. > > > > > +=+ The final statement is just a little bumptious. Sorry, no dictionary at hand. > TDs are subject to the authority of the organizations > they serve, and these in turn to that of the bodies to > which they are affiliated. > Blml is a discussion forum > and it has no authority to interpret whatsoever; at > times it disseminates error and speculation, which > is why officers of committees on which I serve > remind its readers from time to time that the > place to take their problems is their NCBO. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ agreed, if there are problems. The original question that sprang this discussion was about how to interpret some regulation issued by the ACBL. Who should we ask but the ACBL ? But how can we expect a same body to provide regulation AND interpretation. Surely the text should be enough ? Obviously it isn't, and the body has failed to see this. INTERPRETATION = translation into another way of speaking. Surely that must be done by some other body. I still believe that a group of TD's together can agree on an interpretation. BLML is such a group. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 22:07:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:33 +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 WAA00289 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11453 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:07:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39607BCA.EB7282EE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:40:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: 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> <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> <395F4097.C0B94F8B@village.uunet.be> <007501bfe4bb$4434ee00$545408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > Yes differently. > > > > I have not yet received an answer what is the difference > > between a psyche and a forgotten alert. Both fall short of > > "prior announcement", so both should be banned by L40A. Yet > > you seem to want to ban only the psyche. > > > > So, yes, you are treating them differently. > > > +=+ In principle an alert reminds opponent > of something already announced. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In principle, yes. But sometimes, not. And yet one never hears that this is to be ruled illegal. And also : the psyche, when ruled "systemic", is simply ruled to be "disclosable". Exactly what is the difference ? Sorry, but prior disclosure simply won't do. Both types of cases include instances where the same level of prior disclosure is lacking. No Grattan, you are quite simply wrong in this interpretation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 22:08:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:08:02 +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 WAA00311 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:07:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.111]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11633 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:07:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:54:32 +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: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > Now let's get back to defining psyches. > > > +=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in > the law book. Sorry Grattan, not enough. If that definition were enough, we would not be having this discussion. > Any call is subject to regulation if > it is conventional. Another word no-one seems to find a better definition for than "we know it when we see it". > Any understanding as > to initial action is subject to regulation > if it may relate to a hand a king or more > below average strength. These powers > of regulation are unrestricted and > extend to prohibition. Use of these > powers is found, for example, in the > WBF Systems Policy and the EBL > Systems Policy; also the EBU Orange > Book and, no doubt, other regulations. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That is a totally different matter. Some of those regultations state literally that they do not cover psyches. Yet the very notion of psyche is being questioned. As long as you don't realise Grattan, that you are talking in circles, you will not realise that there is a problem. There is a problem. Do tell me Grattan, if you consider my habit of 1He opening a psyche or not. And why. Just think that I have just opened one such with John Probst as partner, who, when asked, replies, "yes, I know he's Belgian, and stupid (de facto) and I know he regularly does this, but I've never told him that he could do so with me, and I have not realised it was a psyche until opponents reached 6Spades." -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 22:52:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:52:34 +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 WAA01027 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:52:25 +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 e63CqAQ36782 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:52:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000703083409.00a90970@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:53:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Alert? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:40 AM 6/30/00, David wrote: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? No. >[2] Do you complete the transfer? No. > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? No. >[4] Do you complete the transfer? No. Since I came by the knowledge that I have misbid on my own, I am allowed -- indeed, required -- to base my subsequent actions on the presumption that partner's 2H bid showed a hand that wanted to bid 2H opposite a minor-suited hand, albeit not necessarily a hand that wanted to bid 2H (whatever that might show) over a natural 1NT. I am not allowed to use partner's alert, or failure to alert, to modify that presumption by assuming that partner has also misbid; I must bid as though partner holds whatever his call shows. This is the other side of the coin that requires me to act as though I had not realized that I misbid if in fact it was partner's alert that woke me up to that fact. That would require me to accept the transfer. But this is not what happened. The difficulty here, of course, is that these two situations are externally undistinguishable; my obligations differ in the two situations, and depend entirely on what was going through my mind at the time. But I believe my ethical obligations should be clear to me as the (only) one who knows what was going through my mind. The controlling principle is that I must act at all times as though I have no knowledge of whether partner alerted or 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 Mon Jul 3 23:20:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:20:47 +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 XAA01144 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:20:38 +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 e63DKUQ38092 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:20:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000703090708.00a91b70@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:21:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: Alert? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Earlier I wrote: >At 07:40 AM 6/30/00, David wrote: > >> LHO You RHO CHO >> >> 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H >> >> Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >>actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! >> >> 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >>fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. >> >> Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. >> >> A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >>response to 1NT is not. >> >>[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > >No. > >>[2] Do you complete the transfer? > >No. > >> Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >>bidding is the same. >> >>[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > >No. > >>[4] Do you complete the transfer? > >No. > >Since I came by the knowledge that I have misbid on my own, I am allowed >-- indeed, required -- to base my subsequent actions on the presumption >that partner's 2H bid showed a hand that wanted to bid 2H opposite a >minor-suited hand, albeit not necessarily a hand that wanted to bid 2H >(whatever that might show) over a natural 1NT. I am not allowed to use >partner's alert, or failure to alert, to modify that presumption by >assuming that partner has also misbid; I must bid as though partner holds >whatever his call shows. > >This is the other side of the coin that requires me to act as though I had >not realized that I misbid if in fact it was partner's alert that woke me >up to that fact. That would require me to accept the transfer. But this >is not what happened. > >The difficulty here, of course, is that these two situations are >externally undistinguishable; my obligations differ in the two situations, >and depend entirely on what was going through my mind at the time. But I >believe my ethical obligations should be clear to me as the (only) one who >knows what was going through my mind. > >The controlling principle is that I must act at all times as though I have >no knowledge of whether partner alerted or not. From others' replies, it appears I may have misread the question. The answers above assume that my realization that I have misbid was not prompted by partner's failure to alert. The principles apply as stated, but it may be that I actually find myself on "the other side of the coin". As above, I am the only one who knows for sure, and must honor my ethical obligations. A further principle here is that when I make a call which I know to be alertable, and partner fails to alert, I must act on the assumption that partner has forgotten to alert rather than that partner has misinterpreted my call. But whether it is partner's alert (or failure to alert) which has woken me up to my own misbid, or whether I woke up on my own, is a question of fact, albeit one which only I can know. I do not believe that I am ethically obligated to act as though partner's alert has either woken me up or not depending on which assumption is more or less to my advantage. The knowledge that a TD or AC might reverse a favorable result because they do not accept my "self-serving" statement as to what was going through my mind at the time cannot affect my ethical obligations; I *know* whether I woke up on my own or because of partner's alert, and must act accordingly and let the TD/AC sort it out. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 3 23:27:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:39 +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 UAA29974 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:24 +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 1393TN-0007x3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:29:06 +0100 Message-ID: <2kfJcVAkn9X5EwQ9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:10:12 +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> <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Noel & Pam wrote: >Yes to all except 4 - this is a common occurrence here, especially at >pairs - some clubs here have an informal rule that passed in hands will be >redealt - people pay for 24-27 boards and clubs don't like to waste the >punters money. I would not play in a club like that because they are wasting my money. >Personally, I wouldn't redeal a board where anyone of the players had a hand >in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat that I would open - 11+HCP or 10 and a 6 card >major. Pearson points rule for 4th seat openings. Why should it be your judgement? Supposing there is no hand that you would open but one that I would open? Am I not allowed my judgement? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 00:26:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:26:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01297 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:26:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e63EQek00840 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:26:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000703101551.00a95a90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:28:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution In-Reply-To: <000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona> <000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:19 AM 7/1/00, Noel wrote: >Yes to all except 4 - this is a common occurrence here, especially at >pairs - some clubs here have an informal rule that passed in hands will be >redealt - people pay for 24-27 boards and clubs don't like to waste the >punters money. > >Personally, I wouldn't redeal a board where anyone of the players had a hand >in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat that I would open - 11+HCP or 10 and a 6 card >major. Pearson points rule for 4th seat openings. Surely this decision cannot be allowed to depend on your particular methods. If it is improper to redeal the board when you might have opened in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat, it must be equally improper to readel the board if anyone in the room might have opened in any position. IMO, (a) this is true; (b) you cannot ever know for sure what "anyone else in the room" might do with any given set of hands; (c) therefore it is improper to redeal a board regardless of the layout. My opinions may be biased by the fact that I regularly play 10-12 1NT openings. I believe that this gives me an advantage -- but it only does so when I get to use it. Were I to discover that I had been deprived of the opportunity to excercise my preferred methods because someone illegally redealt a board on which I would have opened my flat 10-count (to my presumed advantage) I would feel that I had been cheated out of the opportunity to get a good score because of my "superior methods" that the laws grant me. 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 Jul 4 00:27:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:38 +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 UAA29972 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:24 +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 1393TN-0007x4-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:29:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:19:32 +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> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> I 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. >I am calling those things that are based on agreements, >non-psyches. *You* can call them whatever you like, Herman, but using alternative names merely confuses people and does nothing for your argument. If I play that a Benjamin 2D opening shows at least 23 HCP, and I deliberately open it on a flat 2-count, then that is a psyche for everyone in the world apart from yourself. If you are not allowed to psyche a Benjamin 2D opening as a condition set down by the SO then that opening was illegal under L40D. Kindly explain what advantage there is to calling that a "non-psyche" when the rest of us call it an illegal psyche. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 00:33:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01322 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:33:42 +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 KAA20277 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA25009 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007031433.KAA25009@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SW> I fail to see how you can rule anything illegal under L40A. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ We have been here before. Law 40A is the Law which > authorises players to make calls and sets the conditions > for them. L17 also authorizes players to make calls. > 40B, 40D address the conditions under which > calls may be made that do not meet the primary > requirements in 40A. More precisely, L40B prohibits certain calls, and L40D allows SO's (and ZA's) to regulate others. But this is just a quibble. I don't really think we disagree. > A call is not lawful if the laws do > not create the authority for it to be made. Certainly. > The game > must be played strictly in accordance with its laws (and > the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says that the > laws define correct procedure). The player must ask > 'where in the laws or regulations does it say that I may > make this call?'. Certainly. > [It is possible, of course, that Steve Willner does not > appreciate that if he plays a game in which he considers > he is allowed to make calls not enabled by the Laws of > Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997, he is not playing the > game of Duplicate Contract Bridge for which those > Laws provide the basis. He may be reminded of the > interpretation of the laws agreed by the WBF Laws > Committee: "The Secretary drew attention to those > who argued that where an action was stated in the > laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions > if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the > Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if > information deriving from it is used in the auction or > the play."] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Funny.... I would have said this passage expresses exactly what I have said all along in better language than I am capable of. In this particular instance, a call not permitted by L40A is extraneous _unless_ it is either permitted or forbidden by another law. We might look at Laws 17-19 for authorization. (And there must be a law authorizing a pass, but I don't find it in a quick scan.) Do we genuinely disagree on anything important? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 00:40:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:40:19 +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 AAA01369 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:40:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA20490; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 07:36:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200007031436.HAA20490@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Alert? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:40:44 PDT." Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:36:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! Well, on reflection, it appears that everyone who answered this problem, including me, has gotten it wrong. The real answer here is that as soon as I remember that 1NT is for minors, and before I alert partner's bid, I must call the director and inform him that partner's bid was out of rotation. L31B applies. If RHO does not accept the 2H call, it is cancelled, the bidding reverts to me, but I'm required to pass. My 1NT bid and RHO's pass were likewise out of rotation, but since they were condoned, there's nothing more to do with them. So it looks like David has hoodwinked us all, and is now having a hearty laugh at the expense of all of BLML. Either that, or he made a typo. Which is it? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 01:10:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:10:47 +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 BAA01453 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:10:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20889; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:06:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200007031506.IAA20889@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Alert? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:21:54 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000703090708.00a91b70@pop.cais.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:06:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > From others' replies, it appears I may have misread the question. The > answers above assume that my realization that I have misbid was not > prompted by partner's failure to alert. I think we all assumed as you did for question [2]. However, for question [4], partner *did* alert, and most of the rest of us assumed that the realization that you misbid *was* prompted by the alert. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 01:18:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:18:13 +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 BAA01479 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:18:05 +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 LAA21408 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25056 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:17:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:17:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007031517.LAA25056@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > As far as I am concerned, when a Law says you may make a call subject > to certain conditions, then if you break the conditions but still make > the call you are in breach of the Law. That's not what the WBFLC Lille statement said. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 01:43:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:40 +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 UAA29973 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:24 +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 1393TQ-0007xL-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:10:24 +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> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:13 PM 6/28/00, David wrote: > >>Steve Willner 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? > >I imagine Steve is trying to tell David that that might be the case. We >recently had a very active debate on this very point, and it has not, at >least yet, reached a consensus. We know that when adjudicating claims, we >do not impose on the claimer any "irrational" line. The still-open >question is whether the footnote tells us that what is "irrational" depends >on the class of player involved, or specifically that it does not -- that >the fact that a play that might be common or usual for a lesser player but >careless or inferior for a better player (even extremely so) doesn't affect >whether or not it is "irrational". When we had the debate I did not realise that part of some people's view was that those words in the footnote were completely without meaning. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 02:06:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:06:44 +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 CAA01799 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:06:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA22703 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA25188 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:06:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007031606.MAA25188@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 > When we had the debate I did not realise that part of some people's > view was that those words in the footnote were completely without > meaning. I don't recall anyone suggesting anything of the kind. One view is that the words "for the class of player involved" modify 'irrational'. If that is so, then some lines that are normal for some players may be irrational for other players. In other words, identical claims may be judged differently for players of different ability. The alternative view is that "for the class of player involved" modifies 'inferior' and possibly 'careless' but does NOT modify 'irrational'. If that is so, the phrase emphasizes that the player's ability is not a factor in how claims should be judged. In other words, they specifically reject the player's possible statement that "I am too good a player ever to make such a mistake." In either view, the words have an important meaning. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 02:27:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:29:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com [139.134.5.159]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA01512 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:29:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za061177 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:27:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-244.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.244]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Phyric-MailRouter V2.8a 5/548721); 04 Jul 2000 01:27:18 Message-ID: <005001bfe567$64714400$f4dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:24:41 +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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>+=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in >>the law book. > > Where? > In "Chapter 1 - Definitions" in the FLB. This definition was created by Don Oakie in the ACBL Bulletin (Feb 1978) in an article commissioned by the ACBL Board of Directors to state the League's position on psychic bids. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 02:27:19 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:27:19 +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 CAA01829 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:27:10 +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 MAA09729 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007031627.MAA09729@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> References: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 12:27:49 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 2 July 2000 at 9:11, Henry Sun wrote: >At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: > First, apologies to the list for not localizing myself...despite the Christmas Island address, I am from Canada, and under the bastion of the ACBL. I had thought that I had railed against the ACBL enough for people to know this - or I forgot to mention it, take your choice :-). Guess I'm just not as famous as I thought I was. >>Questions: >> >>1) If you had been the TD called at (5), what would have been your >>spiel? > >in the usa, the standard tournament procedure is for the director >to establish that there has been a hesitation (apparently there is no >dispute about this) and to instruct play to continue, asking the non >offending side to call him back if they feel they were damaged. it >is not always stated to hesitator's partner that he is not to take >a call suggested by the hesitations unless there is no logical >alternative to that call. > I know. That's why I'm asking what it should be :-) >>2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone consider that >>the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? > >i think that doubling 3d is the only logical alternative. pass is >clearly wrong with a strong two bid, and 4d tends to eliminate clubs >as a possible strain due to the level of the auction. 4nt is liable >to misinterpretation. > I believe you are racing here. Whether or not there are any LAs to double, there was no hesitation over and above the around 10 second pause required by the skip bid (without warning) - and *always* used by me^H^Hthis player. Therefore there is absolutely no UI to invoke LOLA with. >i do believe that the hesitation before bidding 4h shows real values, >as a responder holding something like xx; xxxx; xxx; xxxx would not >hesitate before bidding 4h. so yes, i believe that passing 4h is a >logical alternative to bidding 4nt, and that the hesitation suggests >bidding on instead of passing. > I see (from this post, and others) that this wasn't as clearcut as I thought. I guess that's why I called the director back - because I wasn't sure. And why I posted the query. FYI, the reason for 4D instead of 4NT was xx xxx xxx QJxxx or the like. Do you really want to commit to slam with enough keycards on a 7-card fit, taking the tap in the long hand - or sitting in 5H missing the HK on the same 7-card fit? Systemically, we strongly favour the majors to minors over takeout doubles, so it's conceivable that the above hand would bid 3H in preference to 4C. Also, what about xxx Kxx xxx Qxxx? We may have a systemic hole here, but I can understand finding out if pard really has hearts before key-carding. >>3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? > >but even if there was MI, were you damaged by it? it doesn't appear >that way to me. I didn't say we were damaged by it - I just wanted to know what should be done when people make bids that grossly differ from their reported agreements, but could easily be systemic, especially in a dangerous and unusual situation, and with no blinking from partner (there was enough conversation at that table for it to be conceivable, at least, for S to wonder out loud what N thought he was doing opening 3D vul with JT sixth). Why do I have to be damaged to be concerned about opponents who actively avoid full disclosure (not accusing them of this - it could easily have been a psych, one that almost worked; but it if wasn't, they are gaining a significant and illegal advantage over their opponents). New question re: full disclosure: in my club, I have one player who believes that because "could be short" is why his 1C opening is alertable, that is all he needs to explain. Of course, what it is is "denies a 5-card suit outside of clubs, not 4441". How do I explain the Law to him safely and correctly (Now, I'm asking as a Director, not a player). Michael From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 02:37:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:37:26 +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 CAA01864 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:37:19 +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 MAA09973 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:38:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007031638.MAA09973@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: <395F4097.C0B94F8B@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><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> <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> <395F4097.C0B94F8B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 12:37:59 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 2 July 2000 at 15:16, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > >> > 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 ~ +=+ > >Yes differently. > >I have not yet received an answer what is the difference >between a psyche and a forgotten alert. Both fall short of >"prior announcement", so both should be banned by L40A. Yet >you seem to want to ban only the psyche. > No, both of them are illegal, and are therefore "banned". It's just that the PTB believe that a forgotten alert (accidental MI) and a psychic under a CPU (deliberate MI, whether or not the SO have regulated it such that it is impossible to not give MI) should be *penalized* differently. Though try "forgetting" a bid (and therefore forgetting to alert) often enough for a PU to develop (under the CoP's "heightened awareness" criterion) and see if you aren't punished the same way a psychic under PU would be[1]. We have even had threads on BLML about that (2D transfer to hearts, or diamonds if she forgot *again*). Michael. [1] Ok, anywhere but here in the ACBL. We *really* need to teach the average player about L16 and situations like the untransfer. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 02:53:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:39 +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 UAA29971 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:29:23 +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 1393TN-0007x6-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 11:29:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:46:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling References: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: >>North Deals 4 >>E-W Vul J73 >> T76432 W N E S >> AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P >> Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P >> A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P >> AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P >> A8 6H AP >> Q9 >> QJ975 >> >>1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning >> Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. >>2) regulation 10ish second pause. >>3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. >>4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. >>5) Director called at this point. >>6) 1430 for hearts. [s] >>3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? > >nothing, except perhaps report it to the tournament director and have the >hand recorded. i would make such a call routinely with the right >partners, but then i don't identify my preempts as 'sound,' as this >pair did. the tournament director might instruct the pair to change >their convention card. > >but even if there was MI, were you damaged by it? it doesn't appear >that way to me. Consider whether to continue over 4H. You effectively have to make a guess based on the existing evidence, excluding anything that is unauthorised. How many points has partner got? Well, you do not know, of course. But let's have a guess. Some people have said something about playing partner for some values, or assuming the remaining values are split. This is usually correct when defending to a pre-empt, but it is affected by you holding 22 HCP. The opposition are playing sound pre-empts, right? OK, how many points do you expect opener to have for a sound pre-empt? Say 6 to 10: let us assume 8. That leaves 10 points for partner and RHO: assuming 5 each on average - and with H Q964 you are going to be going off at the 5-level [say] one time in three. Sounds as though passing 4H is an LA: with those odds 3 out of 10 people are going to pass. Now consider what happens if the opposition say they frequently pre- empt on rubbish: it shows 0+ HCP. Perhaps the opener will average 4 HCP, and that gives partner 7 HCP on average. The chance of slam is increased, the chance of going off at the 5-level is reduced, and now perhaps eight out of 10 players are going on - and pass is no longer an LA under European standards. So, granted that the 3D opener is playing sound pre-empts, we should rule this contract back to 4H+2 under L16A. *However!* Suppose the pair is playing weak pre-empts but have misinformed their opponents. The difference now is that with correct info, pass over 4H is no longer an LA. So even though we have ruled it back to 4H+2 under L16, we now adjust again for MI, and give them 6H=. It is thus very important to find out what the pair is playing and why the player opened 3D. First, as always, is to ask him. If he says "I always open 3D on this sort of hand" then rule MI and let the score be 6S=, and tell them to change their CC. If he says he has psyched 3D then, as ever, you just have to judge the situation. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 03:09:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 03:09:29 +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 DAA01935 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 03:09:20 +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 NAA10572 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007031709.NAA10572@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:09:58 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 3 July 2000 at 2:06, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > If Herman opens 1H I'll treat it as a 1H opener. The fact he's >Belgian and stupid (de facto) doesn't mean to say that I agree with his >idea of a 1H opener. I *do not* have an agreement with him in this >respect. How can we get busted as a result? > I remind all in this conversation about my example a couple of weeks ago. After p - p - 1H(Herman), your opps get to 6NT. You have two lines that would defeat the contract; one relies on Herman having HQJx(+), the other on DT9xxx. Herman has already shown up with the SQ. I know, and you know, that you have enough information to set this contract, if it is settable. I also know that declarer, unless he is a BLMLer or knows Herman in other ways, doesn't have this information. Do you think you shouldn't get busted, when Herman's 1H bid, psychic though it was, has given you knowledge that resolves your choice of defence? Or at least are you not bound by L16 to take the line not demonstrably suggested by your unauthorized and unshared knowledge about Herman's hand? I stand by my statement that "one-per-lifetime" does not equal "habitual" or "repeated enough to be a PU". I believe that Herman's reductio is not valid - one can be barred from making a particular kind of psychic call because of an implicit partnership understanding that has developed *about that call* without barring any other kind of psychic. If that "one" wishes not to make any other sort of psychic, that's his lookout - barring him from making the only psychic he wishes to make is not the same as barring him from psyching. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 03:25:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:39:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01561 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:39:27 +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 1398JQ-0000uH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:39:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:22:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <20000703091603.65526.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000703091603.65526.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: "Grattan Endicott" >>+=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in >>the law book. > Where? In the Definitions: Psychic Call A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 03:53:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA02011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 03:53:45 +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 DAA02006 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 03:53:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23069; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 10:49:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200007031749.KAA23069@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:46:54 PDT." Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:49:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Consider whether to continue over 4H. You effectively have to make a > guess based on the existing evidence, excluding anything that is > unauthorised. How many points has partner got? > > Well, you do not know, of course. But let's have a guess. Some > people have said something about playing partner for some values, or > assuming the remaining values are split. This is usually correct when > defending to a pre-empt, but it is affected by you holding 22 HCP. > > The opposition are playing sound pre-empts, right? OK, how many > points do you expect opener to have for a sound pre-empt? Say 6 to 10: > let us assume 8. That leaves 10 points for partner and RHO: assuming 5 > each on average - and with H Q964 you are going to be going off at the > 5-level [say] one time in three. Sounds as though passing 4H is an LA: > with those odds 3 out of 10 people are going to pass. > > Now consider what happens if the opposition say they frequently pre- > empt on rubbish: it shows 0+ HCP. Perhaps the opener will average 4 > HCP, and that gives partner 7 HCP on average. The chance of slam is > increased, the chance of going off at the 5-level is reduced, and now > perhaps eight out of 10 players are going on - and pass is no longer an > LA under European standards. > > So, granted that the 3D opener is playing sound pre-empts, we should > rule this contract back to 4H+2 under L16A. One other factor to be weighed in is preemptor's suit quality. I'd assume that if the opponents play "sound preempts", they're showing a decent suit, i.e. a hand like x KJ Jxxxxxx QJx wouldn't qualify as a "sound preempt" although it has enough HCP according to David's estimate of the point requirements. If we can expect the opponents to have a decent suit, then we can expect that what few high cards partner *does* have are going to be cards that are useful to us (most likely in hearts) rather than useless diamond honors. Conversely, if the opponents frequently preempt on rubbish, our estimate of partner's HCP has to be downgraded a bit, because of the improved chance that some of those HCP could be in the preemptor's suit, where they aren't likely to be of any use. So it could well be that an estimate of 4-5 HCP in partner's hand, when the opponents are likely to have a solid suit, is as favorable to our offensive chances as an estimate of 6-7 HCP when partner's honors could possibly be wasted diamond honors rather than useful heart honors. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 04:12:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:39:32 +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 BAA01557 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:39:23 +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 1398JQ-0000uI-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:39:11 +0000 Message-ID: <8UZExRBipIY5Ew6a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:43:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice References: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> <002301bfe480$93fc5e40$ec04ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <002301bfe480$93fc5e40$ec04ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Lake" >To: >Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 9:43 PM >Subject: Help with conflicting alert advice > > >> In yesterday's game, South opened 1NT (15-17), overcalled by East with 2S >> (alerted as DONT showing a weakish hand with Spades). South bid 3D and >> there were 3 passes to close the auction. >> >> Later (I don't know if it was before the play of the hand or after), East >> asked North if there had been a failure to alert the 3D bid as nonforcing. >> North and South indicated that they had no nonstandard agreement and, >> therefore, the bid was not alertable. >> >The EBU L&EC addressed this sequence about 2 years ago. It was agreed that >3D is alertable ONLY IF IT IS FORCING. Similary 3C or 3H.If there have been >any changes since then I'm sure DWS will tell us. Of course your own >regulating >body might have quite different rules.It seems to me that those that play >Lehbensohl would play it differently form those who don't, but there, that >is the >rule in EBU/WBU land. Anne is being modest. The main reason that the EBU L&EC looked at the sequence was because of a posting she made to BLML! I think the answer in the ACBL is much the same as it was in the EBU: you could make a reasonable deduction as to whether such sequences shouldbe alerted based on the expectation of the meaning without an alert plus the alert regulations but it would come as no surprise if others came to different conclusions. So it really needs the ACBL to make and publish a decision about this case. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 04:51:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 04:51:09 +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 EAA02137 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 04:51:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.71.73] (helo=D457300) by neodymium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #82) id 139BIs-0001dQ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 19:50:47 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfe51f$9f55a400$4947073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:50:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Henry Sun wrote: > >At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: > >>North Deals 4 > >>E-W Vul J73 > >> T76432 W N E S > >> AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P > >> Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P > >> A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P > >> AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P > >> A8 6H AP > >> Q9 > >> QJ975 > >> > >>1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning > >> Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. > >>2) regulation 10ish second pause. > >>3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. > >>4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. > >>5) Director called at this point. > >>6) 1430 for hearts. > > [s] > > >>3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? > > > >nothing, except perhaps report it to the tournament director and have the > >hand recorded. i would make such a call routinely with the right > >partners, but then i don't identify my preempts as 'sound,' as this > >pair did. the tournament director might instruct the pair to change > >their convention card. > > > >but even if there was MI, were you damaged by it? it doesn't appear > >that way to me. > > Consider whether to continue over 4H. You effectively have to make a > guess based on the existing evidence, excluding anything that is > unauthorised. How many points has partner got? > > Well, you do not know, of course. But let's have a guess. Some > people have said something about playing partner for some values, or > assuming the remaining values are split. This is usually correct when > defending to a pre-empt, but it is affected by you holding 22 HCP. > > The opposition are playing sound pre-empts, right? OK, how many > points do you expect opener to have for a sound pre-empt? Say 6 to 10: > let us assume 8. That leaves 10 points for partner and RHO: assuming 5 > each on average - and with H Q964 you are going to be going off at the > 5-level [say] one time in three. Sounds as though passing 4H is an LA: > with those odds 3 out of 10 people are going to pass. > > Now consider what happens if the opposition say they frequently pre- > empt on rubbish: it shows 0+ HCP. Perhaps the opener will average 4 > HCP, and that gives partner 7 HCP on average. The chance of slam is > increased, the chance of going off at the 5-level is reduced, and now > perhaps eight out of 10 players are going on - and pass is no longer an > LA under European standards. [snip] I think that a player who hears 3H, cue bids over it, hears 4H, and *then* bids Blackwood is using information from his partner's tempo. He must be. Otherwise, why did he not bid Blackwood over 3H? What additional information does the player have that has caused him to re-evaluate his hand? What, in short, did 4H show that 3H did not show? On the other hand, a slow 4H showed plenty that 3H did not show. While the rest of DWS's analysis is sound enough, and while the question of misinformation may need to be addressed, this West player has convicted himself by his own actions of a breach of Law 73. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 05:25:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:25:44 +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 FAA02213 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA28904 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA25403 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:25:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007031925.PAA25403@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps it would help to consider a practical case or really two similar cases. Matchpoints, neither vulnerable. South deals and opens 1NT, all pass, and West leads. When dummy comes down, it has a decent 10 HCP, and EW call the TD for protection. The NS convention card is marked for a notrump range of 15-17 HCP. The event is not in the ACBL, and no announcement or alert of 1NT was required regardless of the range. If the TD looks at the hand records, he will find that South also holds a decent 10-count. If the TD lets the hand play, NS will score +90 for a good result; EW can make something their way or take a plus on defense at anything higher than 1NT. Case 1: NS agree that their true range was 10-12. At IMP's, they play strong notrump in all positions, but they use mini (10-12) NV at matchpoints. They say they accidentally put their IMP convention card on the table. Case 2: South says he psyched. Neither North nor South admits to any previous experience of psyching 1NT, although one of them psyched a suit opening six months ago. North says he passed because he thought the pair needed a swing and was sure the rest of the field would be in 3NT. Either 3NT might not make, or perhaps his LHO would balance over 1NT and go down 500 or more. How do you rule? If you need additional information, give a ruling for the most likely possibilities. Please mention the relevant law numbers if possible. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 05:27:17 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:27:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA02237 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 05:27:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from p85s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.134] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139Bpo-0005jz-00; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:24:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bfe524$6c75b520$868793c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><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> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> <007401bfe4bb$433928e0$545408c3@dodona> <39607D30.614B7DE4@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: 'There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza' - (was WBF position on Psychics). Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:03:28 +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: 03 July 2000 12:46 Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > And what do we do until then ? > > > > > +=+ Follow the guidance of your NCBO. The NCBO > > seeks the interim ruling of the Zonal Organization +=+ > > > > > And what do we do until they say something ? > > > > And what do we do if the conflict is not considered > > > significant ? > > > > > +=+ Remain with the ruling of the Zonal Authority+=+ > > > > > And what if they too decide the conflict is not considered > significant ? > > > > And what do we do if there is no conflict (but just a junior > > > TD asking how to interpret a phrase) ? > > > > > +=+ Pass on the guidance you have already received+=+ > > I have received no guidance. > Other TD's ask ME for guidance. > I believe that in many cases I know the correct > interpretation. > Even if I have not read anything from the VBL, BBF, EBL, WBF > about it. > That is what I mean : I make the interpretation. > > And if that junior TD does not ask me, HE has made the > interpretation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > WE do the interpreting. The senior TD's. BLML even. > > > > > > > > +=+ The final statement is just a little bumptious. > > Sorry, no dictionary at hand. > ~ 'bumptious' : offensively self important, assertive or conceited ~ > > > TDs are subject to the authority of the organizations > > they serve, and these in turn to that of the bodies to > > which they are affiliated. > > > Blml is a discussion forum > > and it has no authority to interpret whatsoever; at > > times it disseminates error and speculation, which > > is why officers of committees on which I serve > > remind its readers from time to time that the > > place to take their problems is their NCBO. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ --------------- \x/ -------------- > > I still believe that a group of TD's together can agree on > an interpretation. > ~ true, but for how much does it count? not much unless backed by those in authority over the game ~ > > BLML is such a group. > ~ Yes it is. But the WBF and its affiliated organizations do not recognize it as having any kind of power to decide, only the right of free speech. ~ > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 06:20:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:20:00 +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 GAA02380 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:19:53 +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 QAA09215 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:19:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200007031925.PAA25403@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:13:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 3:25 PM -0400 7/3/00, Steve Willner wrote: >Perhaps it would help to consider a practical case or really two similar >cases. > >Matchpoints, neither vulnerable. South deals and opens 1NT, all pass, >and West leads. When dummy comes down, it has a decent 10 HCP, and EW >call the TD for protection. The NS convention card is marked for a >notrump range of 15-17 HCP. The event is not in the ACBL, and no >announcement or alert of 1NT was required regardless of the range. If >the TD looks at the hand records, he will find that South also holds a >decent 10-count. If the TD lets the hand play, NS will score +90 for >a good result; EW can make something their way or take a plus on >defense at anything higher than 1NT. > >Case 1: NS agree that their true range was 10-12. At IMP's, they play >strong notrump in all positions, but they use mini (10-12) NV at >matchpoints. They say they accidentally put their IMP convention card >on the table. This is a straight MI case. If it is likely that E-W would have bid something over the weak 1NT, then an adjustment should be made. If not (so that +90 was the normal score for anyone playing a mini NT), then the score stands. N-S are making a claim about their system, for which they may need to provide some evidence. >Case 2: South says he psyched. Neither North nor South admits to any >previous experience of psyching 1NT, although one of them psyched a >suit opening six months ago. North says he passed because he thought >the pair needed a swing and was sure the rest of the field would be in >3NT. Either 3NT might not make, or perhaps his LHO would balance over >1NT and go down 500 or more. This is a fielded psyche; whether it is based on CPU or UI is not relevant for adjustment. While North's reasoning is possible, it is not to be accepted in thie situation. North may have picked up a cue from partner's behavior, for example. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 06:36:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:36:41 +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 GAA02450 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:36:34 +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 QAA02186 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA25467 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:36:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007032036.QAA25467@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David J. Grabiner" > This is a straight MI case. ... > This is a fielded psyche; ... Yes, I agree of course. But the underlying question is _why_ are these two cases different? What laws apply? Why don't the laws that apply to one case apply to the other? This may be what Herman has been asking about. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 06:57:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:57:07 +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 GAA02499 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:56:59 +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 QAA17189; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA114317658; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:54:18 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:54:00 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Ruling: contested claim Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, laws@mamos.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 GAA02500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- De : laws Date d'envoi : 30 juin, 2000 12:06 A : bridge-laws Cc : laws Objet : Re: Ruling: contested claim Michael Amos wrote: > I have to say that I think Laval has apparently been rather generous to his claimer here - I always start by asking declarer as soon as I can what has happened in trumps (often having to shut up dummy :)) - answers to this question may convince me that declarer was aware of the outstanding trump (or more often in my experience) or leave me thinking that he probably had overlooked it. It's such an easy claim - "ruff high and draw trumps" that my first instincts are with David and I might allow declarer the opportunity of convincing an appeal committee that he can count. (It's not so long ago in my experience that an international trialist failed to convince an AC in such a situation because he didn't really seem that sure how many trumps he'd started with or perhaps how many there were in the pack) __________________________________ Look back at the hand: DA lead by W, D to K, D ruff by W, E in hand with HA later and D again: claim without any plan. At this point there was only 5 trumps played and 2 more ouside. My opinion at table was that "this" declarer was fully aware of these outstanding trumps. I know he should have tell "ruffing high and running trumps" instead of something like "you found the lead.." and nothing else. So I hope I was more "correct" (according to laws and judgment) than "generous". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 06:58:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:58:44 +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 GAA02514 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:58:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-225.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.225]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23441 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:58:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3960DE23.909F9507@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:40:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <200007031709.NAA10572@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 remind all in this conversation about my example a couple of weeks > ago. > > After p - p - 1H(Herman), your opps get to 6NT. You have two lines that > would defeat the contract; one relies on Herman having HQJx(+), the other > on DT9xxx. Herman has already shown up with the SQ. > > I know, and you know, that you have enough information to set this > contract, if it is settable. I also know that declarer, unless he is a > BLMLer or knows Herman in other ways, doesn't have this information. So what ? (in this case) > Do you think you shouldn't get busted, when Herman's 1H bid, psychic > though it was, has given you knowledge that resolves your choice > of defence? Why ? Yes, you have information, what is wrong with that ? It is YOU who is suggesting that this information is illegal. I don't believe it is ! > Or at least are you not bound by L16 to take the line not > demonstrably suggested by your unauthorized and unshared knowledge > about Herman's hand? > Why unauthorised ? Unshared - OK, that's a possible problem. Suppose it is declarer who has to play Herman for QJ of hearts or JT. If he does not have the knowledge that is available, he might go down. And then get a ruling about MI and make his contract. Simple L12C2. I agree with that. Look guys, don't try and get me this way. I believe that there can be "knowledge" about "psyches". That "knowledge" is AI, and should be disclosed. That knowledge does not make the call illegal through some insane application of L40A. In this post, I am not stating anything about the systemicity of the "psyche", which could make it bannable under L40D. I don't believe that this is the case here, but I am deferring that discussion to some other thread. > I stand by my statement that "one-per-lifetime" does not equal > "habitual" or "repeated enough to be a PU". I believe that Herman's > reductio is not valid - one can be barred from making a particular kind > of psychic call because of an implicit partnership understanding that > has developed *about that call* without barring any other kind of > psychic. If that "one" wishes not to make any other sort of psychic, > that's his lookout - barring him from making the only psychic he wishes > to make is not the same as barring him from psyching. > > Michael. I still don't believe that putting a number on some psyche is a good idea - whether it be one or more. Habitual actions make "partnership understanding", not "agreement". But that is the other discussion all over again. Let me summarise. There is no way any amount of knowledge can be used to ban a call under L40A. It may turn the call into one that falls under L40B, which implies it necessitates disclosure. Failure to disclose is handled in L40C. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 07:21:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:58:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02521 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:58:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-225.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.225]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23449 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:58:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:45:33 +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: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> 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. > > >I am calling those things that are based on agreements, > >non-psyches. > > *You* can call them whatever you like, Herman, but using alternative > names merely confuses people and does nothing for your argument. > > If I play that a Benjamin 2D opening shows at least 23 HCP, and I > deliberately open it on a flat 2-count, then that is a psyche for > everyone in the world apart from yourself. > > If you are not allowed to psyche a Benjamin 2D opening as a condition > set down by the SO then that opening was illegal under L40D. Kindly > explain what advantage there is to calling that a "non-psyche" when the > rest of us call it an illegal psyche. > Indelicate snipping, David. My remark was used for all your other examples. I agree that the benjamin on 2HCP is a "psyche", and that it can be banned under L40D. I don't believe anything can be banned under L40A. I believe that anything that falls within L40B territory is not a psyche. Or I choose to call it not a psyche. I believe that the reason for disclosure of "knowledge" regarding psyches is L75C (partnership experience). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 08:03:17 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02688 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:03:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139EIm-000JKX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:02:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:33:54 +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> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> <007401bfe4bb$433928e0$545408c3@dodona> <39607D30.614B7DE4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39607D30.614B7DE4@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I still believe that a group of TD's together can agree on >an interpretation. >BLML is such a group. I do agree with Herman on this one. Grattan's advice is theoretically sound but practically unsound. If someone needs help with an interpretation of a Law in England they will often phone me. I will do my best for them. They should, of course contact their Zonal authority? The method of deciding interpretations of Laws at this moment is basically by discussion between people with some idea of how to advance. The better that group of people, the better the interpretation on average. If a club TD has difficulty with an interpretation his immediate reaction is to ask another TD in the same club, not to ring up the EBL. and what good would it do to ring up the EBL? They do not have a method of dealing with such a request, do they? I know that the theory is fine. The club TD asks the chief TD in the club who rings up the County who asks their chief TD who rings up the EBU who emails the EBL who asks the WBF who asks Ton to put it on the Agenda for Maastricht. Yes, wonderful. And perhaps the question was "Is it *ever* possible to give fewer than two tricks for a revoke?", which I am confident that 99% of BLMLers could answer very easily and correctly. Please do not say that people do not ask such questions: this is a real example that I was asked yesterday in Llandudno. Of course, that is an easy one that we can read from the Law book, but it is still an interpretation. But BLML does a fair service on interpretation despite the mess that some threads fall into, and for many of our readers it is probably the best practical method of getting an interpretation. When we have a major problem then you might say that BLML is not so useful because it is not official and because some of its views are wrong. Sounds good, doesn't it? Where a claim+concession is concerned, to take an example, we have a view expressed by the Chairman of the WBFLC. Now my understanding is that when Ton or Grattan posts here that is their view, but is not official unless they are quoting minutes or something similar. Ton believes, as is his right, that the matter was too trivial for the WBFLC. Fine, I would not disagree, but the effect of that is simple: what he believes is obvious is at variance with established EBU practice. They do not agree with his interpretation. So, suppose you are a National TD in England. How do you rule in such a situation? Easy: you do what the EBU says. You can hardly be wrong that way. A discussion on BLML has eventually finished up with a different view. now, should we be ignoring that interpretation, as Grattan seems to suggest? Should we take no notice, because it is on BLML? Does the fact that Ton disagrees with the EBU interpretation not affect us *because* Ton was posting on BLML, and that does not count? The WBFLC does not have an easy method of making club TDs aware of their interpretations: until they do we must do our best, and in my view "our best" includes Belgian TDs ringing Herman and various people asking BLML. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 08:03:21 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:03:21 +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 IAA02689 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:03:08 +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 139EIm-000JKZ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:02:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:34:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert? References: <200006301611.e5UGBEm14997@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200006301611.e5UGBEm14997@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> >> >> LHO Y ou RHO CHO >> >> 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H >> >> Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >> actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > >I like it. Did this really happen? I do not know. I was asked for an opinion by a group of players in the Manchester area. But I expect it did: I would not expect the player who actually asked to make up a rulings-type question. --------- Peter Gill wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >(c) It appears from DWS's post that the Strong 1C was not >alerted. Depending on EBU rules, this may be the first infraction, >which may be relevant. To put queries to people, as a matter of protocol, I do not go through absolutely everything and bore our readers before I start [I bore them in the ensuing posts ]. If 1C had not been alerted I would have drawn the reader's attention to it. [s] >(g) The same Aussie Recorder convinced me that you >MUST alert 2H if either of you has EVER forgotten the >same bid before (since the opponents must be fully >informed of partnership experience as well as system). >I would add a rider that it is relevant to check exactly >what is required to be alerted according to the SO. I think he is just wrong. [s] >>[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? >No, not under EBU rules, since 2H is "natural, to play". >In Australia the fact that 2H suggests shortage in both minors >may make 2H Alertable, by the way. In my view it is *not* alertable under Australian alerting regs. --------- Gordon Bower wrote: >There are plenty of reasons why partner might have failed to alert. The >most common is that he was drinking coffee, or ogling a caddy, or quietly >cursing what went wrong on the previous board; usually if this is the >case, it gets caught and correctly alerted before the auction is over, but >not always. Next most common is confusion about the alert rules (I play in >the ACBL, after all). These two together account for at least two-thirds >of the failures to alert that happen at my table. There is no reason to >presume partner has spades solely because he didn't alert 1NT. Trust thy >partner, even when he has made one mistake already. I find this post totally worrying. We find that in the EBU there is some confusion over whether to alert doubles. We may find a few other areas where people get a little confused, and the whole thread is about a strange situation. But the reliance you can put on an alert otherwise is remarkably high. I find it amazing that you get so much failure to alert for reasons that are so silly. Over 1C, 1NT requires an alert if it is a convention, and not if it isn't: EBU players are not going to get *that* wrong. Furthermore, missing an alert because you were drinking coffee or ogling a caddy shows a lack of interest in the game which I find strange [and against the Proprieties, of course]. All these things happen, but not with the regularity you are suggesting. Playing at the sort of level where people care enough to worry about whether they should be alerting when they have made a mistake, and alerts due to inattention will occur at my table once every several months. I shall live with that. When my partner does not alert my 1NT overcall then the chances are 99% that he believes it to be natural, 1% something else. Let's go with the 99% for this problem. -------- Noel wrote: >Surely all you can do is salvage whatever you can from the situation? You >must call the Director as soon as it is legal to do so and ALL will be >revealed. If the opponents have been damaged, let the director fix the >problem and get on with life. Reasonable enough, but I think it is even more reasonable that players know what they should do themselves so that the situation can be dealt with best. ------- Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> LHO You RHO CHO >> >> 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H >> >> Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >> actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > >Well, on reflection, it appears that everyone who answered this >problem, including me, has gotten it wrong. The real answer here is >that as soon as I remember that 1NT is for minors, and before I alert >partner's bid, I must call the director and inform him that partner's >bid was out of rotation. L31B applies. If RHO does not accept the 2H >call, it is cancelled, the bidding reverts to me, but I'm required to >pass. My 1NT bid and RHO's pass were likewise out of rotation, but >since they were condoned, there's nothing more to do with them. > >So it looks like David has hoodwinked us all, and is now having a >hearty laugh at the expense of all of BLML. > >Either that, or he made a typo. > >Which is it? The latter. And you were not first: someone immediately sent me an email with this answer. :) -- 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 Tue Jul 4 08:03:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:03:21 +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 IAA02693 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:03:11 +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 139EIm-000JKY-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:02:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:23:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H but I meant > RHO You LHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H Well spotted, Adam and the person who emailed me. > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! There was no suggestion as certain people have assumed that you remembered *before* partner alerted [or didn't]. I meant that you remembered after the 2H bid but before you got round to alerting it [or not]. > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. This does not mean four spades as some assumed, it just means a flat hand. If I meant four spades I would write 4=3=3=3. > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? >[2] Do you complete the transfer? > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? >[4] Do you complete the transfer? --------- Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with this, and it reads as follows: 3.3.1 If as a result of your partner's explanation you realise you have misbid, you must continue to call as if in ignorance of the correct meaning of your call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss. Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, and explain, if asked, your partner's calls solely according to your partnership agreements. (Law 73C) This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed by this regulation? [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? -- 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 Tue Jul 4 08:04:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:04:57 +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 IAA02731 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:04:50 +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 SAA06330; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 18:04:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200007032036.QAA25467@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:57:55 -0400 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:36 PM -0400 7/3/00, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David J. Grabiner" >> This is a straight MI case. >... > >> This is a fielded psyche; >... > >Yes, I agree of course. But the underlying question is _why_ are these >two cases different? What laws apply? Why don't the laws that apply >to one case apply to the other? The laws which apply depend on the partnership understandings, just as misbid/misexplanation rulings do. In order to adjust a score for a CPU, you must have evidence of a CPU (and then adjust under L40B, which doesn't provide for an adjusted score itself so you must use your general powers when no penalty is prescribed); in order to adjust for MI, you must have evidence of MI (and then adjust under L21B or L40C). One or the other infraction has occurred, and the TD/AC needs to determine which one. The only related guideline in the Laws is the footnote to L75, which says that the director should presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The proper generalization is probably that the director should presume the agreement least favorable to the offending side in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the CPU/MI situation, evidence needs to be presented to demonstrate MI; for example, the player who claimed to have the wrong convention card out may present the correct convention card. Another case in which this would apply is when different explanations of an agreement are given on different sides of a screen. If only one of the explanations could cause damage from MI if wrong, the TD/AC should presume that either there is no agreement or that the damaging explanation is the wrong agreement. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 08:13:15 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:58:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02526 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:58:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-225.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.225]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23463 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 22:58:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:09:22 +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, yet another try Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Several sub-threads have evolved fro my first another try, so I want to try and have yet another go. I believe all actions can be divided into a number of classes. I propose to give them names. Don't attack my name-giving, please. 1) "systemics" : actions that are based upon partnership understanding 2) "non-systemics" : actions that are not based upon partnership understanding all actions are either systemics or non-systemics. every action is one or the other. 3) "mistakes" : misstatements that have been made unintentionally 4) "deviations" : misstatements that have been intentionally made, but not gross 5) "psyches" : gross misstatements that have been intentionally made all non-systemics are either mistakes, deviations or psyches. every non-systemic is exactly one of the three. I believe that there should be no possible discussion about this classification. Some may think that other words might be more appropriate, and some delineations are not clear at this moment, but the 4 groups should be clearly understood by all. Now on to the Laws. L40A tells us that one is allowed to make psyches, deviations and mistakes. L40B tells us that systemics must be disclosed. L40C tells us what happens when L40B is broken. I'll return to L40D later. L75A is, according to me, exactly the same as L40B, except that it also tells us it is illegal to base system knowledge on whether it is raining or not. L75B tells us again that psyches and deviations are allowed. L75C tells us that all knowledge must be given about systemics (agreements) and about deviations and psyches (and even about mistakes: "partner often forgets this bit")(experience). It is this Law that I cite in stating that there can be "knowledge" about psyches, which does not render them systemics. Let's return to L40D. This tells us that (either directly or indirectly) "understandings" can be regulated. This applies only to "systemics", because of the use of the same word as in L40A. Conclusion : There is such a thing as "psyche". It is allowed by L40A and L75B. There can be knowledge about it. It cannot be banned by L40D. It cannot be banned by L40A. And still we don't know how to define it. But we keep on trying. Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always wanted to have a convention named after me). Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. Please don't answer L40A. I've often enough stated this is not possible (no Grattan, it is not). Please don't answer L40D. Of course that would be why you would want to ban it. I even grant you that in all zones, weak openings are banned, and that this is a weak opening. I would like to know why you think it is a "systemic" rather than a "psyche". I can think of a few things : -Because I've done it before (how many times before it turns into a systemic ?); -Because I've told you that I've done it before (silly me - or rather not, I find I must); -Because my partner knows I have done it before, since I did it with him on one occasion; -Because my partner knows I have done it before, since I told him about it; -Because I have it on my convention card (I haven't, they wouldn't let me); or anything else. A reason I would perhaps accept, if it were true : -Because we play Drury (I never do, but if I did, would it be a psyche?) Answers very welcome ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 09:08:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:08:41 +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 JAA02838 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:08:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial2.isi.com [192.103.52.193]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id PAA07401 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:59:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:07:52 -0700 Message-ID: <000501bfe55c$a92cca20$c13467c0@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: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > 3) "mistakes" : misstatements that have been made > unintentionally > 4) "deviations" : misstatements that have been intentionally > made, but not gross > 5) "psyches" : gross misstatements that have been > intentionally made > > all non-systemics are either mistakes, deviations or > psyches. > every non-systemic is exactly one of the three. > what about sequences that are undefined by the partnership? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOWFG9iGkJ7YU62vZEQKBdACeJZ3XSpJW7yAhuRvLkfHoVb2ctwgAnimY 3H5g9msm3c94obhm/WPdU8eZ =4dMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 09:10:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02854 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:10:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-33qti3o.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.200.120]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA28696 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:10:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000703232347.00865718@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, 03 Jul 2000 16:23:47 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:46 AM 7/3/00 +0100, you wrote: >Henry Sun wrote: >>At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: >>>North Deals 4 >>>E-W Vul J73 >>> T76432 W N E S >>> AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P >>> Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P >>> A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P >>> AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P >>> A8 6H AP >>> Q9 >>> QJ975 [snip] > Now consider what happens if the opposition say they frequently pre- >empt on rubbish: it shows 0+ HCP. Perhaps the opener will average 4 >HCP, and that gives partner 7 HCP on average. The chance of slam is >increased, the chance of going off at the 5-level is reduced, and now >perhaps eight out of 10 players are going on - and pass is no longer an >LA under European standards. that's an interesting argument, one i admit not considering in my initial response to this problem. still, i'd guess the slow 4h call over the 4d qbid suggests values, or at least doesn't deny them. if, as david suggests, opener will average 4hcps, then partner will average 7hcps in the long run, and the hesitation will confirm this. (nothing prevents responder from holding some flat 12 count and not continuing the preempt, after all.) so as a tournament director, which i'm not, i'd guess the right ruling is to roll back to 4h making 6, and encourage ew to appeal the ruling to a committee, which might well overturn the result. in one sense, if there has indeed been MI about the 3d preempt, then there is no non-offending side. would it be possible - here i may be in fantasy land - to rule 6h+6 for ns and 4h+6 for ew, and encourage BOTH hands to appeal? (if i AM in fantasy land, please be gentle with me...) henrysun From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 09:20:36 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:20:36 +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 JAA02899 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:20:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.142] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139FVf-000M9N-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:20:15 +0100 Message-ID: <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:14:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > Now let's get back to defining psyches. > > > > > +=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in > > the law book. > > Sorry Grattan, not enough. > > If that definition were enough, we would not be having this > discussion. > ### Where a definition is given in the law book no other definition counts for anything in the game. It is not the definition of 'psychic' that is the difficulty here but the relationships between psychic calls and partnership understandings, and the attempt to suggest that a player may have extraneous knowledge that his partner is psyching - not derived from authoized information , but rather from esoteric information shared by the partners, and not be in breach of the law. Well, it just ain't so. ### > > Any call is subject to regulation if > > it is conventional. > > Another word no-one seems to find a better definition for > than "we know it when we see it". > ### If a call does not fit one of the three exclusions in the definition of 'convention' then it is conventional. That is the law. ### > > > Any understanding as > > to initial action is subject to regulation > > if it may relate to a hand a king or more > > below average strength. These powers > > of regulation are unrestricted and > > extend to prohibition. Use of these > > powers is found, for example, in the > > WBF Systems Policy and the EBL > > Systems Policy; also the EBU Orange > > Book and, no doubt, other regulations. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > That is a totally different matter. > > Some of those regultations state literally that they do not > cover psyches. Yet the very notion of psyche is being > questioned. > > As long as you don't realise Grattan, that you are talking > in circles, you will not realise that there is a problem. > > There is a problem. > +=+ The only circles are those created by your 'dear Liza, dear Liza' technique. It is up to the regulating bodies to decide what they wish to do with the regulatory powers they enjoy. To make certain categories of psyche 'Brown Sticker' is to ban them from certain tournaments. +=+ > > Do tell me Grattan, if you consider my habit of 1He opening > a psyche or not. And why. > +=+ Difficult because I have not bothered to study your habit. I have been solely concerned with the principles that underlie the interpretations, rulings and policies of the international authorities, and this has not necessitated my knowing what may be individual practices. +=+ > > Just think that I have just opened one such with John Probst > as partner, who, when asked, replies, "yes, I know he's > Belgian, and stupid (de facto) and I know he regularly does > this, but I've never told him that he could do so with me, > and I have not realised it was a psyche until opponents > reached 6Spades." > +=+ I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. To say "I never told him he could do so with me" is immaterial. If you and John share knowledge about a habit of violating the announced meanings of your calls there is a partnership understanding that must be made known beforehand to opponents - it should be on your convention card - so that they can agree countermeasures. And if you do not disclose it in advance you must refrain from indulging yourself or be in knowing and serious breach of the law and (72B2) the proprieties. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 09:28:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:20:37 +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 JAA02900 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:20:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.142] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139FVh-000M9N-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:20:17 +0100 Message-ID: <004301bfe545$8ef22040$8e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <001001bfd204$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><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> <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> <395F4097.C0B94F8B@village.uunet.be> <200007031638.MAA09973@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:21:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 5:37 PM Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. > On 2 July 2000 at 15:16, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> --------------- \x/ ------------------ > > > >I have not yet received an answer what is the difference > >between a psyche and a forgotten alert. Both fall short of > >"prior announcement", so both should be banned by L40A. Yet > >you seem to want to ban only the psyche. > > > No, both of them are illegal, and are therefore "banned". > It's just that the PTB believe that a forgotten alert (accidental MI) > and a psychic under a CPU (deliberate MI, whether or not the SO have > regulated it such that it is impossible to not give MI) should be > *penalized* differently. > +=+ I do not think a forgotten alert is 'banned'. It is treated as misinformation and if it causes damage will lead to an adjusted score. The call to which it relates is generally legal. Making illegal bids (examples include psyches based on unannounced understandings or implicit agreements, psyches that are forbidden by regulation, and use of conventions that are not permitted for the category of tournament) is dealt with in the manner prescribed by the tournament regulations. The actual treatment of such illegal calls does vary from place to place. [ An alert is a warning to the opponent that there is something that he should be informed about. He should then be able to refer to the prior announcement of partnership understandings in order to discover what it is. Commonly accepted usages and meanings that opponents may be expected to understand are exempt from the requirement for 'prior announcement' (words that effectively, these days, mean "shown on the CC") even when the call is alertable.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 09:42:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:42:19 +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 JAA02973 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:42:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28460; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:38:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200007032338.QAA28460@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Alert? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 18:23:12 PDT." Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:38:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > by this regulation? I don't think [1] and [2] are affected at all by the regulation, since in those cases the realization did not come from partner's actions, and the main issue there was the UI you got about partner's hand from his failure to alert 1NT. So 3.3.1 doesn't apply to that case. As for [3] and [4], I believe my answer (essentially the same as David Grabiner's et al.) was in accordance with the regulation, provided that "explanation" is read as including "alert or failure to alert". > [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? Almost clear, except that I think it should include something about partner's "alert or failure to alert". Another objection: I think this regulation should apply even in cases where you forgot your system but didn't really misbid. For example: partner opens 2NT; holding 4=3=4=2, you bid 3C, thinking it's Stayman, but partner alerts and says it's Puppet Stayman, which asks for a 4- or 5-card major and involves a completely different set of rebids by opener. No one can claim you misbid, since 3C is also the correct bid playing Puppet Stayman, but to follow L73/16A1 it's *still* necessary to follow the instructions in the regulation. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 09:56:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:56:10 +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 JAA03017 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:56:03 +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 QAA28699; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:52:24 -0700 Message-Id: <200007032352.QAA28699@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:23:47 PDT." <1.5.4.32.20000703232347.00865718@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:52:25 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: > in one sense, if there has indeed been MI about the 3d preempt, then > there is no non-offending side. would it be possible - here i may be > in fantasy land - to rule 6h+6 for ns and 4h+6 for ew, and encourage > BOTH hands to appeal? It's possible, but the TD must not rule that way just to penalize both sides for being offenders, without using the Laws to determine how the score should be adjusted. He has to go through the process. For EW, the TD determines whether pass was a LA to 4NT and whether 4NT was suggested by the hesitation; if so, he rules 4H+6 for EW. For NS, the TD determines whether there was MI about the 3D bid, and if so, whether the MI damaged EW by preventing them from getting to a slam they would have gotten to. First, the TD determines: was it at all probable that EW would have gotten to slam legitimately without the MI. If so, I think he should adjust to 6H+6 for NS, since that was EW's equity at the time of NS's infraction, although I think the TD has to figure out whether EW *would* have gotten to the slam without using UI. However, if we rule that pass is a logical alternative over 4H, then I think we have to rule that EW might have actually bid that way if there were no UI, and that therefore NS's misinformation damaged EW by putting them in a situation where they were more likely to miss the slam. It seems to me that determining what equity is, in a situation where the "non-offenders" later became offenders by violating a different Law, is difficult. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 11:17:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:17:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03135 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:17:19 +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 139HKl-0006Zu-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:17:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:16:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip Herman's 1H opener ... >> >> Just think that I have just opened one such with John Probst >> as partner, who, when asked, replies, "yes, I know he's >> Belgian, and stupid (de facto) and I know he regularly does >> this, but I've never told him that he could do so with me, >> and I have not realised it was a psyche until opponents >> reached 6Spades." >> >+=+ I am not sure what this is supposed to >mean. To say "I never told him he could do so >with me" is immaterial. If you and John share >knowledge about a habit of violating the >announced meanings of your calls there is >a partnership understanding that must be >made known beforehand to opponents - it >should be on your convention card - so that >they can agree countermeasures. And if you >do not disclose it in advance you must >refrain from indulging yourself or be in >knowing and serious breach of the law and >(72B2) the proprieties. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I will alert the 1H opener if I think it appropriate (on frequency grounds), but I will have made it clear to Herman that I do not like the bid and it is not an agreement and that I will do my best to punish this call with a monumental limit raise if I can. What can I do else? I do not field bids which experience has suggested might be psyches, because it's bad bridge (the Laws provide draconian penalties) but I just *can't* stop the b****r making them. Help Grattan!! 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 Jul 4 11:51:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:51:39 +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 LAA03194 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:51:29 +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 139Hrs-0007O1-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:51:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:50:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" 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> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> <007401bfe4bb$433928e0$545408c3@dodona> <39607D30.614B7DE4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > The WBFLC does not have an easy method of making club TDs aware of >their interpretations: until they do we must do our best, and in my view >"our best" includes Belgian TDs ringing Herman and various people asking >BLML. > In practice the poor TD (i.e. me) who is dealing with 500+ infractions a year, and who has problems with perhaps as many as 10 of these, knows that the best place to go to get a good cross-section view on how to apply the Law will do so at blml. It is *ridiculous* to suggest otherwise. It's still *my* ruling, but I'll be much better placed to make it. I can balance the opinions, not only from my peers (EBU TDs) but also from a lot of other experienced (and inexperienced) TDs. 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 Jul 4 13:20:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:20:51 +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 NAA03408 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:20:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139ILF-000NOo-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:21:43 +0000 Message-ID: <4IzKXOAovRY5Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:04:08 +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> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@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: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> >> >I am calling those things that are based on agreements, >> >non-psyches. >> >> *You* can call them whatever you like, Herman, but using alternative >> names merely confuses people and does nothing for your argument. >> >> If I play that a Benjamin 2D opening shows at least 23 HCP, and I >> deliberately open it on a flat 2-count, then that is a psyche for >> everyone in the world apart from yourself. >> >> If you are not allowed to psyche a Benjamin 2D opening as a condition >> set down by the SO then that opening was illegal under L40D. Kindly >> explain what advantage there is to calling that a "non-psyche" when the >> rest of us call it an illegal psyche. >> > >Indelicate snipping, David. > >My remark was used for all your other examples. No, it wasn't, because I did not have "all other examples" [except one in a different part of the article]. I merely said that you can make a psyche illegal under L40D and you said you defined that as a non-psyche. That's it. Now, if this was a misunderstanding, so be it. >I agree that the benjamin on 2HCP is a "psyche", and that it >can be banned under L40D. Good. Then you have agreed with one of my two reservations. >I don't believe anything can be banned under L40A. That is a different matter, and I take issue with you there. If you are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 13:20:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:20:56 +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 NAA03411 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:20:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139ILF-000NOp-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:21:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:33:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200007031606.MAA25188@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007031606.MAA25188@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 >> When we had the debate I did not realise that part of some people's >> view was that those words in the footnote were completely without >> meaning. > >I don't recall anyone suggesting anything of the kind. > >One view is that the words "for the class of player involved" modify >'irrational'. If that is so, then some lines that are normal for some >players may be irrational for other players. In other words, identical >claims may be judged differently for players of different ability. > >The alternative view is that "for the class of player involved" >modifies 'inferior' and possibly 'careless' but does NOT modify >'irrational'. If that is so, the phrase emphasizes that the player's >ability is not a factor in how claims should be judged. In other >words, they specifically reject the player's possible statement that "I >am too good a player ever to make such a mistake." > >In either view, the words have an important meaning. So, I have said that the words modify our approach to claims, and I was told I am wrong. I then say that I did not realise the words do not modify our approach to claims, and am told I am wrong. I do not see any third possibility. -- 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 Tue Jul 4 13:58:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:58:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03556 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:58:09 +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 139HX5-000Ai1-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:28:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Alert? References: <200007031001.LAA05465@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200007031001.LAA05465@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200007031001.LAA05465@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> LHO You RHO CHO >> >> 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H >> >> Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >> actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! >> >> 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >> fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. >> >> Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. >> >> A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >> response to 1NT is not. >> >> [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? >> [2] Do you complete the transfer? >> >> Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >> bidding is the same. >> >> [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? >> [4] Do you complete the transfer? > >A "me too" response, in case you are keeping a tally. >My answers are the same as DavidG's. > >[1] No. Our system is natural. >[2] No. UI (partner has forgotten the system) suggests he has spades. >[3] No. As [1] >[4] Yes. UI (partner's alert) suggests he has hearts, so I should transfer. > >Robin > Add me to this list. 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 Jul 4 13:58:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:58:13 +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 NAA03552 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:58:03 +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 139HV9-000Aeg-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:27:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 02:27:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007031925.PAA25403@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007031925.PAA25403@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200007031925.PAA25403@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Perhaps it would help to consider a practical case or really two similar >cases. > >Matchpoints, neither vulnerable. South deals and opens 1NT, all pass, >and West leads. When dummy comes down, it has a decent 10 HCP, and EW >call the TD for protection. The NS convention card is marked for a >notrump range of 15-17 HCP. The event is not in the ACBL, and no >announcement or alert of 1NT was required regardless of the range. If >the TD looks at the hand records, he will find that South also holds a >decent 10-count. If the TD lets the hand play, NS will score +90 for >a good result; EW can make something their way or take a plus on >defense at anything higher than 1NT. > >Case 1: NS agree that their true range was 10-12. At IMP's, they play >strong notrump in all positions, but they use mini (10-12) NV at >matchpoints. They say they accidentally put their IMP convention card >on the table. > MI, adjust if the opponents can get into the auction. L72B1 >Case 2: South says he psyched. Neither North nor South admits to any >previous experience of psyching 1NT, although one of them psyched a >suit opening six months ago. North says he passed because he thought >the pair needed a swing and was sure the rest of the field would be in >3NT. Either 3NT might not make, or perhaps his LHO would balance over >1NT and go down 500 or more. CPU. Book a red psyche and award 60/30. I'd do this at the Young Chelsea and no-one would even flicker. L73E & F, inter alia > >How do you rule? If you need additional information, give a ruling for >the most likely possibilities. Please mention the relevant law numbers >if possible. -- 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 Jul 4 16:23:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:23:36 +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 QAA03924 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.90.160] (helo=D457300) by carbon with smtp (Exim 3.03 #82) id 139M6a-0002xX-00; Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:22:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfe580$4c217960$a05a01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@village.uunet.be> <4IzKXOAovRY5Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:22:55 +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 DWS wrote: [snip] > >I don't believe anything can be banned under L40A. > > That is a different matter, and I take issue with you there. If you > are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball > played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. It is, remember, a huge error to imagine that the Laws are written in English. Some time ago, it was established that the phrase "related to a specific suit or suits" did not include calls related to a specific suit. The words: "A player may make any call or play... without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding" would to a speaker of English strongly imply that a player may not make a call or play without prior announcement if it is based on a partnership understanding. However, this is not explicitly stated, so that both Herman's view and yours are tenable, and to continue to debate the point strikes me as fruitless. In the same way, if one saw a sign saying "Baseball may be played here between 7pm and midnight", one would be advised not to play baseball there at 4pm, even though the sign does not expressly prohibit this. David Burn London, England From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 16:32:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:32:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03946 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:31:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.16] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139MF9-0000r8-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:31:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01bfe581$d20a5e60$105408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001001bfd204$a181be40$4a7593c3@pacific><001d01bfd47d$05131380$ae6393c3@pacific><000901bfd4c4$21389ca0$c45608c3@dodona> <39461668.D81C58EA@village.uunet.be><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> <003001bfe0d5$337191c0$675408c3@dodona> <395F412C.C1202BA3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:30:38 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:18 PM 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 ! > +=+ Ah! How remiss of me. Perhaps the problem is that his Federation has no policy on training Directors, so that it does not issue guidance to them. If this is so perhaps Herman finds himself by default the source of guidance to other Belgian Directors? This has suddenly occurred to me when rereading some of what Herman has said. In this scenario perhaps what Herman does not appreciate is that his position is not analogous with those of other senior Directors who have a system of guidance from the centre in their NCBOs - seminars, bulletins, a Gary or a Philippe representing the NCBO to whom they may turn for guidance and instruction when they are uncertain how to act. A Laws & Ethics Committee circulating its minutes to Directors after its meetings, and writing to Directors and Appeals Committee Chairmen when it has something to say about a report. Ah, sorry, Herman: perhaps I should have been recognizing a special case and merely remarking that *you* are 'different' - but should look to the EBL for guidance if you get none from your NCBO? ~ Grattan ~ +=+. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 16:43:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:43:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f28.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA03973 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 16:43:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 38156 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jul 2000 06:42:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20000704064219.38155.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.134.250.243 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:42:19 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.134.250.243] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:42:19 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > So, I have said that the words modify our approach to claims, and I >was told I am wrong. I then say that I did not realise the words do not >modify our approach to claims, and am told I am wrong. > > I do not see any third possibility. The words modify our approach, but in an unspecified (not agreed upon) manner. (Do you know schroedinger's cat?) -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 17:21:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04081 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:21:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16595 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:21:12 GMT Message-ID: <3961906B.8C76D1E3@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:21:15 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson a écrit : > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > LHO You RHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > but I meant > > > RHO You LHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Well spotted, Adam and the person who emailed me. > > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > There was no suggestion as certain people have assumed that you > remembered *before* partner alerted [or didn't]. Actually, was it before or after? The word "remember" tends to assume "before" I meant that you > remembered after the 2H bid but before you got round to alerting it [or > not]. OK > > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > This does not mean four spades as some assumed, it just means a flat > hand. If I meant four spades I would write 4=3=3=3. > > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > >response to 1NT is not. > > > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? no > >[2] Do you complete the transfer? no > > > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > >bidding is the same. > > > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? no > >[4] Do you complete the transfer? yes > > --------- > > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > by this regulation? no > [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? yes > [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? irrelevant this regulation is clear but, unfortunately, in contradiction with L16A. It tells to bid in ignorance of UI, and L16A tells to use UI to your own detriment. In the given example, it's only random that both give the same outcome. JP Rocafort > > -- > 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 ~ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 18:10:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:10:02 +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 SAA04133 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:09:54 +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 SAA02309 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:06:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:06:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Alert? To: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:06:11 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 04/07/2000 06:04:27 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [big snip] "Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with this, and it reads as follows: 3.3.1 If as a result of your partner's explanation you realise you have misbid, you must continue to call as if in ignorance of the correct meaning of your call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss. Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, and explain, if asked, your partner's calls solely according to your partnership agreements. (Law 73C) This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed by this regulation? [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it?" My answer to [5] is No, since regulations can only supplement but not conflict with Law (L80F). My answer to [6] is that the regulation is clear, *but* it is also incomplete and partially contrary to Law. My answer to [7] is this draft regulation: *If unauthorised information (for example partner's explanation, alert, failure to alert or hesitation) demonstrates that you have misbid, you must continue to call as if your original misbid was in fact a partnership agreement. Meanwhile, any alerts and explanations you give must be according to the agreed partnership system. If your alerts and/or explanations tell partner that you initially misbid, this information is also unauthorised. Then partner is obliged to act as if all your calls are part of the agreed partnership system. Should either you or partner make a non-systemic call during such an auction, such a call must be construed according to agreed partnership style, NOT on the assumption that partner has earlier misbid or been earlier misunderstood.* Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 18:53:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:53:42 +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 SAA04187 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.87] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139OSI-0003uQ-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:53:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "John Probst" References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be><007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be><004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:59:49 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 2:16 AM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > > I will alert the 1H opener if I think it appropriate (on frequency > grounds), but I will have made it clear to Herman that I do not like the > bid and it is not an agreement and that I will do my best to punish this > call with a monumental limit raise if I can. > > What can I do else? I do not field bids which experience has suggested > might be psyches, because it's bad bridge (the Laws provide draconian > penalties) but I just *can't* stop the b****r making them. > > Help Grattan!! cheers john > -- +=+ You have spread a net at my feet! It is not my role to guide an English TD as to how he should deal with a player in England. But, to a *player* I could suggest two things - (a) report each instance to the tournament director, (b) if you recognize you know too much, insist on a statement on the CC. Then the TD could write to Max Bavin and ask him for guidance as to what follows. You are making the WBF's CoP case for it since you are telling us there is no fielding but there is a partnership awareness. DWS does not like the word 'awareness' but it is out of the mutual awareness in the partnership that the understanding springs and you have described a very clear example. {And, for accuracy, those draconian penalties emanate via the regulations - and IWBFO should apply in a case like this even when there is no fielding.} ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 18:53:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:53:44 +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 SAA04188 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:53:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.87] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139OSM-0003uQ-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:53:26 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfe595$a08f58e0$575608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@village.uunet.be> <4IzKXOAovRY5Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:53:55 +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: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > >> > >> If you are not allowed to psyche a Benjamin 2D opening as a condition > >> set down by the SO then that opening was illegal under L40D. Kindly > >> explain what advantage there is to calling that a "non-psyche" when the > >> rest of us call it an illegal psyche. > >> ------------- \x/ -------------------- > > > >I agree that the benjamin on 2HCP is a "psyche", and that it > >can be banned under L40D. > > Good. Then you have agreed with one of my two reservations. > > >I don't believe anything can be banned under L40A. > +=+ Remarkable arrogance. The international authorities rule something is illegal, leave it to affiliates to determine how it will be handled in their territories, but Herman knows better (as parens patriae?) +=+ > ------------------------------------------------------- > That is a different matter, and I take issue with you there. If you > are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball > played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. > -- > David +=+ Good shot David. Perhaps he understands baseball. :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 19:30:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:30:12 +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 TAA04246 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:30:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.75]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25091 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:29:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396100A8.FB460EF7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:07:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007031925.PAA25403@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Perhaps it would help to consider a practical case or really two similar > cases. > Perhaps it would help, yes, but I don't see what it would help with. Your case are mere exercises in determining players intent and beliefs. > Matchpoints, neither vulnerable. South deals and opens 1NT, all pass, > and West leads. When dummy comes down, it has a decent 10 HCP, and EW > call the TD for protection. The NS convention card is marked for a > notrump range of 15-17 HCP. The event is not in the ACBL, and no > announcement or alert of 1NT was required regardless of the range. If > the TD looks at the hand records, he will find that South also holds a > decent 10-count. If the TD lets the hand play, NS will score +90 for > a good result; EW can make something their way or take a plus on > defense at anything higher than 1NT. > > Case 1: NS agree that their true range was 10-12. At IMP's, they play > strong notrump in all positions, but they use mini (10-12) NV at > matchpoints. They say they accidentally put their IMP convention card > on the table. > If we choose to believe them, then there is no psyche. They both intended their calls to be systemic. There is misinformation though, regardless of the excuse. > Case 2: South says he psyched. Neither North nor South admits to any > previous experience of psyching 1NT, although one of them psyched a > suit opening six months ago. North says he passed because he thought > the pair needed a swing and was sure the rest of the field would be in > 3NT. Either 3NT might not make, or perhaps his LHO would balance over > 1NT and go down 500 or more. > If we believe North, then it doesn't matter what South's explanation is. But of course his explanation is way off. If he had 8, I would be able to believe him, but passing on 10 ? Really ! But what it boils down to is whether we believe them or not. If we believe them, then this is a psyche, and no amount of L40Aing will be able to do anything. If we don't believe them, we give them severe PP's and throw them out of the game. Then it is L40A, concealed partnership understanding. (Yes, I do use that one sometimes, over intentional cases). > How do you rule? If you need additional information, give a ruling for > the most likely possibilities. Please mention the relevant law numbers > if possible. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 19:38:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04266 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:38:03 +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 KAA20907; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:37:53 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA10907; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:37:52 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:37:51 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04534; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:37:50 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA11854; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:37:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:37:49 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200007040937.KAA11854@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bnewsr@blakjak.com Subject: Re: Alert? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > by this regulation? No. (Previous answers were No,No,No,Yes.) [1],[2] are not directly covered by this regulation, and in [3],[4] I hoped I had followed the regulation. > [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? Clear enouugh except that alert or failure to alert is an "explanation" > [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? If as a result of your partner's explanation (including an alert or failure to alert) you realise you have misbid, ... For [1],[2]: Could also add guidance on what to do (i.e. what to alert/explain) when it appears from partner's explanation/alert that partner has got the system wrong. If as a result of your partner's explanation (including an alert or failure to alert) you suspect partner has misremembered your agreements, you must continue to call as if partner's call are based on the correct meaning of your call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss. Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, and explain, if asked, your partner's calls solely according to your partnership agreements. OR Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, and explain, if asked, your partner's calls according to your partnership agreements (if any) which relate to partner's apparent understanding of the auction. ?!? 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 Tue Jul 4 20:44:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:44:02 +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 UAA04435 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17493 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:43:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3961BDE1.E1C42C96@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:35:13 +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: Alert? References: <3961906B.8C76D1E3@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? > irrelevant > > this regulation is clear but, unfortunately, in contradiction with > L16A. Well, no Jean-Pierre, actually in contradiction with L75D2. Jean-Pierre can claim honourary membership in the DwS. > It tells to bid in ignorance of UI, and L16A tells to use UI to your own > detriment. In the given example, it's only random that both give the > same outcome. > > JP Rocafort > > > > -- > > 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 ~ > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > Jean-Pierre Rocafort > METEO-FRANCE > SCEM/TTI/DAC > 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis > 31057 Toulouse CEDEX > Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) > Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) > e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr > ___________________________________________________ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 20:44:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04438 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17500 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:43:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3961BF9B.795D919@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:42:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <000501bfe55c$a92cca20$c13467c0@isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > > what about sequences that are undefined by the partnership? > Well, they are either systemic or deviations. They cannot be psyches, because how can you misrepresent when there is no system available. It will always be up to the TD to determine what the system actually is and from that deduce whether a call falls into one category or another, but it must fall into one and only one of the 4 categories. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 20:43:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04425 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17462 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:43:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3961BBCE.72A1F64@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:26:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@village.uunet.be> <4IzKXOAovRY5Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001701bfe595$a08f58e0$575608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > >I don't believe anything can be banned under L40A. > > > +=+ Remarkable arrogance. The international authorities > rule something is illegal, leave it to affiliates to determine > how it will be handled in their territories, but Herman > knows better (as parens patriae?) +=+ Well, I happen to believe this. How can that be arrogant ? > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > That is a different matter, and I take issue with you there. If you > > are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball > > played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. > > -- > > David > +=+ Good shot David. Perhaps he understands > baseball. :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Maybe cricket would have captured my attention better. However, David used the word "but" up there. In L40A, there is no such "but". L40A tells us that all calls are legal if not based on partnership understanding. It says nothing about all others. L40B does. To use the baseball example : Let's translate the real text of L40A into baseball : A player The public may may make any call or play ... play baseball here provided that provided that ... not based on ... it is after 7 o'clock What happens if I pay baseball in that park before seven. I get thrown in jail, probably. But suppose there is a second rule A player The public may not may not make a call ... play baseball based on ... before 7 o'clock unless unless ... discloses the use ... they have a permit And a third rule If ... if failure to explain you do not have a permit adjusted score fine 10$ Then we know what happens to someone playing baseball before 7 o'clock, without a permit : he pays a fine. That is the true analogy. Sorry, just my poor understanding of English. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 20:43:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04429 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17486 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:43:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3961BD83.7E45A57E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:33:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Alert? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > by this regulation? Yes. I have often stated that there is only one reason for the actions of the De Wael School. Since the laws or regulations say nothing about which law I should break (and I feel I have to break one or another), I should be free to choose the path that in my opinion does my side the least harm. Apparently in the EBU there does exist a regulation whihc tells me to give partner UI in spite of L75D2, so I shall follow that one. Does any other SO have such regulations ? > [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? yes. > [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 20:43:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04421 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17453 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:43:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3961B115.31320AAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 11:40:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <007701bfe4bb$45c7c300$545408c3@dodona> <39607D8B.BB055F92@village.uunet.be> <004101bfe545$8cc83b60$8e5608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +=+ The line is not good enough. It is illegal > > > to have an undisclosed partnership > > > understanding that you will regularly violate > > > your announced agreements in a particular > > > situation, for example, even if the nature > > > of the violation is to be widely variable or > > > random. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > For the twenty-seventh time : > > > > WHICH IS WHY I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DISCLOSE IT !!!!!!! > > > +=+ You can disclose it. Write it on your CC. Then it > is subject to the regulations, whatever they happen > to be for the tournament, established under Law 40D. > The law does not say you may not have the understanding, > it says that if you have it you must disclose it. The > regulations on the other hand may or may not allow it, > depending what it is and what the ethos of the > tournament is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And then it turns into an agreement, which, as a weak opening, is banned. I am saying that there must be some middle ground. There is "knowledge" about psyches. That knowledge must be disclosed. Therefor, that knowledge must be disclosable. At the current state of practice, it cannot be disclosable, while remaining unbanned. I want to break that link. Do you agree that there must be some such middle ground ? I don't know if it is the regulation we must attack, or the interpretation of experience and agreement. I believe it must be the second one, but some seem to think it must be the first. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 4 23:32:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:32:49 +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 XAA04910 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:32:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-58.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-58.interpacket.net [216.252.211.58]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ha127615 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:44:36 +1000 Message-ID: <005401bfe5bb$373f3ec0$3ad3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:10:54 +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 Sorry all, Am I missing something? In case 3 there is no problem. Pard has alerted 1NT and bid 2H to play - if 2H is alertable in your zone, you alert it and pass, what's the problem? regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 3 July 2000 12:55 Subject: Re: Alert? > David Stevenson wrote: > > "LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > response to 1NT is not. > > [1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [2] Do you complete the transfer? > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > bidding is the same. > > [3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > [4] Do you complete the transfer?" > > [snip] > > This is an interesting case, since whether or not pard alerts, UI has been > passed. In cases [1] and [2] it is permissible for you to realise that 1NT > should have been conventional. What is UI is that pard has simultaneously > forgotten your convention, and intends 2H as a transfer. So you do not > alert the 2H bid, and you also Pass it. Furthermore, if 2H is the final > contract, before the opening lead you summon the TD, and explain to the TD > and opponents that 1NT should have been alerted as showing the minors. > (The opponents are entitled to your agreements, even if neither your hand > nor pard's hand correspond to them.) > > In cases [3] and [4] your partner has given UI to you that your 1NT is > systemically for minors. You still do not alert 2H - since 2H is still > systemically a natural, terminal call. However, you must keep bidding on > the assumption that 2H is transfer to spades, and call 2S (or super-accept > if your hand and system permit). > Does bidding over pard's terminal 2H give UI to pard? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 00:17:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:17:28 +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 AAA05127 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:17:20 +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 139TVY-0007ir-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 14:17:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:32:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert? References: <3961906B.8C76D1E3@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3961906B.8C76D1E3@meteo.fr> 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 AAA05128 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >David Stevenson a écrit : >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > RHO You LHO CHO >> > >> > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H >> >> > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >> >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! >> >> There was no suggestion as certain people have assumed that you >> remembered *before* partner alerted [or didn't]. > >Actually, was it before or after? The word "remember" tends to assume >"before" Let me try and make it clear again. The bidding goes 1C [alerted] 1NT [alerted or not in two separate cases] Pass 2H *Now* you "remember" before you alert, ie after the 2H bid, and long after the alert of 1NT if there was one. Ok? -- 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 Wed Jul 5 00:26:40 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:26:40 +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 AAA05176 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.19.182]) by mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000704142622.IEPA381.mta01-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:26:22 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01bfe5c4$e83680e0$b613ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:34:04 +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, July 03, 2000 6:23 PM Subject: Re: Alert? > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > LHO You RHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > but I meant > > > RHO You LHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Well spotted, Adam and the person who emailed me. > > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > There was no suggestion as certain people have assumed that you > remembered *before* partner alerted [or didn't]. I meant that you > remembered after the 2H bid but before you got round to alerting it [or > not]. > > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > This does not mean four spades as some assumed, it just means a flat > hand. If I meant four spades I would write 4=3=3=3. > > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > >response to 1NT is not. > > > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > >[2] Do you complete the transfer? > > > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > >bidding is the same. > > > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > >[4] Do you complete the transfer? > > --------- > > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > by this regulation? Yes. > [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? Yes (unless I've missed something and it does not mean what I think it says) > [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? > As I understand it: 1&2 I have misbid.I have no UI, and I have remembered.My opps are entitled to know that systemically 2H is natural. I do not alert it and I do not complete. 3&4 I have misbid and UI has told me that I have done so. I must continue to bid as though my call was as per the system. However the opps are still entitled to know the systemic agreement so I do not alert the 2H, but I do complete the transfer. > If there were no alerting regulation in existance, then opps would read our CC and have full knowledge of our system. I would have made the same mistake, and remembered, I would not have alerted the 2H bid, and I would not have completed the transfer, but I might have bid on to a better contract eg 3NT. This is how I believe it should be.The alerting procedure it seems, is designed to ensure that if a mistake is made, the culprit has no chance to recover. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 02:47:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:47:13 +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 CAA05742 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:47:03 +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 139VqU-0004kK-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:46:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:43:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> >> I will alert the 1H opener if I think it appropriate (on frequency >> grounds), but I will have made it clear to Herman that I do not like the >> bid and it is not an agreement and that I will do my best to punish this >> call with a monumental limit raise if I can. >> >> What can I do else? I do not field bids which experience has suggested >> might be psyches, because it's bad bridge (the Laws provide draconian >> penalties) but I just *can't* stop the b****r making them. >> >> Help Grattan!! cheers john >> -- >+=+ You have spread a net at my feet! It is not >my role to guide an English TD as to how he >should deal with a player in England. But, to >a *player* I could suggest two things - >(a) report each instance to the tournament >director, (b) if you recognize you know too >much, insist on a statement on the CC. > Then the TD could write to Max Bavin >and ask him for guidance as to what follows. We've been arguing the Herman 1H (or the Probst 1NT) for years with no sustainable conclusion. >You are making the WBF's CoP case for it >since you are telling us there is no fielding >but there is a partnership awareness. DWS >does not like the word 'awareness' but it is >out of the mutual awareness in the >partnership that the understanding >springs and you have described a very clear >example. {And, for accuracy, those >draconian penalties emanate via the >regulations - and IWBFO should apply in a >case like this even when there is no >fielding.} ~ G ~ +=+ I do not see how one can adjust after a Herman 1H (which for sake of argument I've alerted and explained as "A 1H opener but Herman is known to psyche this from time to time"), provided I bid as though Herman *has* a 1H opener (and I have to be careful in my choice of bids). The opponents are aware of the partnership style (but it is not an agreement, nor understanding - indeed I can't understand why the stupid Belgian *keeps* doing it and I don't agree with it) and Herman has exercised his law 40A right. I have followed Law 40B by not fielding it. Law 40D refers to understandings. We don't have one. I can book the psyche, sure, but it's still category Green (until the first time I make due allowance for it being a psyche, and now we can turn on simultaneous garrotte, bastinado and line them against the wall) -- 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 Jul 5 03:08:00 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:08:00 +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 DAA05828 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:07:53 +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 NAA11496 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007041708.NAA11496@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001301bfe51f$9f55a400$4947073e@D457300> References: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> <001301bfe51f$9f55a400$4947073e@D457300> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 13:08:34 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 3 July 2000 at 19:50, "David Burn" wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> Henry Sun wrote: >> >At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: >> >>North Deals 4 >> >>E-W Vul J73 >> >> T76432 W N E S >> >> AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P >> >> Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P >> >> A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P >> >> AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P >> >> A8 6H AP >> >> Q9 >> >> QJ975 >> >> >> >>1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning >> >> Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. >> >>2) regulation 10ish second pause. >> >>3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. >> >>4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. >> >>5) Director called at this point. >> >>6) 1430 for hearts. >> >[snip] > >I think that a player who hears 3H, cue bids over it, hears 4H, and >*then* bids Blackwood is using information from his partner's tempo. You may be right. However: >He must be. Otherwise, why did he not bid Blackwood over 3H? What >additional information does the player have that has caused him to >re-evaluate his hand? What, in short, did 4H show that 3H did not >show? 4 hearts? Not 3 spades? What about the diamond stopper? Wouldn't you rather be in any other slam than hearts (exc. diamonds of course) if partner's hand is suitable? Make East's hand Jxx Kxx xxxx Qxx and, while 6 of anything isn't great, it isn't automatically down on the expected 4-2 heart break. >On the other hand, a slow 4H showed plenty that 3H did not show. > Yes, I am beginning to realize this. Truly (warning: self-serving comment here) the hesitation was because I was trying to figure out what partner wanted from me (is this a slam try? Pick a black suit? 4NT with a D stop?). But intention truly doesn't matter; no matter what I was thinking about, the pause was much more likely to show values than not (though what do you do with xxx xxx xxxx xxx? And will you be able to do that in tempo?), so west is bound under L16A. >While the rest of DWS's analysis is sound enough, and while the >question of misinformation may need to be addressed, this West player >has convicted himself by his own actions of a breach of Law 73. > Yes, but what does that mean? Remember, the TD didn't explain to West about his restrictions, just to North about "he's allowed to think, and as long as he doesn't pass, it's usually OK." That's what really prompted the post in the first place - I want to know what I as a director in this situation should say, and how I should explain it to the table. The fact that this was a close decision is an interesting sidelight. Blast, I promised myself I would make this short. Oh, and welcome back, David. Michael. -- Progress does not consist of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong. -- Hawkin's Theory of Progress "guess"@farebrother.cx - Michael Farebrother. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 03:24:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:24:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05859 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:24:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-13-29.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.13.29]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14656 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:23:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3961C118.732A8A02@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:48:56 +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: Alert? References: <200007040937.KAA11854@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > If as a result of your partner's explanation > (including an alert or failure to alert) you > realise you have misbid, ... > > For [1],[2]: > Could also add guidance on what to do (i.e. what to alert/explain) > when it appears from partner's explanation/alert that partner has > got the system wrong. > Indeed, the guidance only deals with what to do if you yourself got it wrong. The DwS and the ROTW are in agreement about this. > If as a result of your partner's explanation > (including an alert or failure to alert) you suspect > partner has misremembered your agreements, you must > continue to call as if partner's call are based on the > correct meaning of your call, until it is obvious from > the auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, and > explain, if asked, your partner's calls solely > according to your partnership agreements. > OR > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, and > explain, if asked, your partner's calls according to > your partnership agreements (if any) which relate to > partner's apparent understanding of the auction. ?!? > Do I really need to say that I favour this second option ? It is in accordance with L75D2, and it immediately solves also the third problem, the one which Robin does not touch on yet : What to do if you have absolutely no idea which one of you has got the correct systemic agreement ? In the DwS, this is yet again simple : you still bid according to your idea of the system, and expain according to partner's. Just like in the two other cases. In the ROTW, that one is totally insoluble. > 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 03:30:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:30:34 +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 DAA05888 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:30:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 58811 invoked for bounce); 4 Jul 2000 17:30:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.191) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 4 Jul 2000 17:30:09 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfe5dd$ac808460$bf291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:30:56 +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: > > > > LHO You RHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > but I meant > > > RHO You LHO CHO > > > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Well spotted, Adam and the person who emailed me. > > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT > >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > There was no suggestion as certain people have assumed that you > remembered *before* partner alerted [or didn't]. I meant that you > remembered after the 2H bid but before you got round to alerting it [or > not]. > > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a > >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > This does not mean four spades as some assumed, it just means a flat > hand. If I meant four spades I would write 4=3=3=3. > > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H > >response to 1NT is not. > > > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? > >[2] Do you complete the transfer? > > > > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The > >bidding is the same. > > > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? > >[4] Do you complete the transfer? > > --------- > > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > by this regulation? No. > [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? It could be clearer. > [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? The regulation (as quoted above) does only cover 'explanations', not all UI, like, in this case, partner's alerts or his failure to alert. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 04:02:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:02:48 +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 EAA05985 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:02:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-027.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.219]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA53288 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:02:00 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000801bfe5e2$e34ff160$db307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 19:08:38 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 2S P(h) 3S, Green x Q9xx AQ109 Axxx Do you allow a double? The majority view was that Pass was not a logical alternative for an international player. Wow! IMHO that is a very big position to take. OK Pass is not a good call but is it so bad that it cannot be considered a logical alternative? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 04:47:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA06173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f146.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA06168 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 04:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 46336 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jul 2000 18:46:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000704184638.46335.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.169.207.124 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 04 Jul 2000 11:46:38 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.169.207.124] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 11:46:38 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Richard Willey wrote: > > > > > > what about sequences that are undefined by the partnership? > > > >Well, they are either systemic or deviations. They cannot >be psyches, because how can you misrepresent when there is >no system available. But the first time you do it, you create the system within your partnership, so you can't do it again with the same effect. >It will always be up to the TD to determine what the system >actually is and from that deduce whether a call falls into >one category or another, but it must fall into one and only >one of the 4 categories. He's also going to tell you to define this sequence, I hope. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 06:16:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:16:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA06314 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:16:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma985724 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:16:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-214-147.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.147]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Trouble-Free-MailRouter V2.9 3/69054); 05 Jul 2000 06:16:00 Message-ID: <009801bfe658$d86b89a0$93d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:13:03 +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: >...Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation >concerned with this, and it reads as follows: > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: > >[5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be >changed by this regulation? No. >[6] Do you think this regulation is clear? No. But recently I seem to be (inadvertently) a specialist at misinterpretation. :) >[7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? (a) does "partner's explanation" include *partner's alert without a follow-up explanation*? Perhaps **partner's alert and/or explanation** would be more complete. Thus the regulation does not seem to apply to DWS's example because partner did not give an explanation. I checked the FLB just in case its Definitions chapter includes *alert* as part of "explanation", but the latter is not defined there, so I am relying on my not-always-reliable commonsense. (b) A language specialist might suggest that the careful placement of the commas implies that the phrase "solely according to your partnership agreements" applies only to "explain" and not to *alert*. Of course we "know" that that is not the case. If the sentence began **Meanwhile both your alerts.. and explanations...", this possible misinterpretation would be removed. (c) The regulation might as well include advice about whether to call the TD as soon as you become declarer or dummy. (d) perhaps "obvious from authorised information within the auction that something is amiss" would be more precise, even if it's self-evident to educated readers. I don't really like that phrase much anyway but am unable to work out if it has a flaw which is demonstrated by DWS's example. Peter Gill Australia From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 06:58:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:58:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06459 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:58:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139Zlb-0002r8-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:58:03 +0100 Message-ID: <00c301bfe5fa$db5aaa00$835408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <007701bfe4bb$45c7c300$545408c3@dodona> <39607D8B.BB055F92@village.uunet.be> <004101bfe545$8cc83b60$8e5608c3@dodona> <3961B115.31320AAD@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:18:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 10:40 AM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ You can disclose it. Write it on your CC. Then it > > is subject to the regulations, whatever they happen > > to be for the tournament, established under Law 40D. > > The law does not say you may not have the understanding, > > it says that if you have it you must disclose it. The > > regulations on the other hand may or may not allow it, > > depending what it is and what the ethos of the > > tournament is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > And then it turns into an agreement, which, as a weak > opening, is banned. > > I am saying that there must be some middle ground. > > There is "knowledge" about psyches. That knowledge must be > disclosed. > Therefor, that knowledge must be disclosable. > At the current state of practice, it cannot be disclosable, > while remaining unbanned. > > I want to break that link. > > Do you agree that there must be some such middle ground ? > +=+ I agree that there *can* be some such middle ground. I think the position in the WBF Conditions of Contest is one attempt to find middle ground. But I defend the right of each regulating authority to determine a position for itself, according to its view of the general interests of its tournament entrants and the will, determined democratically, of its members. Whether psychic actions based on previously disclosed partnership understandings are to be permitted is, in my view, rightly a matter for the NBO, SO, Regulating Authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 06:58:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06466 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 06:58:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 139Zld-0002r8-00; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:58:05 +0100 Message-ID: <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be><007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be><004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:38:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 5:43 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > > I do not see how one can adjust after a Herman 1H (which for sake of > argument I've alerted and explained as "A 1H opener but Herman is known > to psyche this from time to time"), provided I bid as though Herman > *has* a 1H opener (and I have to be careful in my choice of bids). > > The opponents are aware of the partnership style (but it is not an > agreement, nor understanding - indeed I can't understand why the stupid > Belgian *keeps* doing it and I don't agree with it) and Herman has > exercised his law 40A right. I have followed Law 40B by not fielding > it. Law 40D refers to understandings. We don't have one. > +=+ In my opinion you have a classic case of the implicit agreement (that Herman will psyche in this position) per Law 75B. It has happened repeatedly, you both are aware of it. The fact that you do not field it is neither here nor there. Let me add that I am intrigued to know whether the fact that John will not psyche in this position then establishes that you are in breach OB 9.1.2 (you are certainly in breach of OB 3.1.1. - the practice is admitted - and I wonder about 6.1.2). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 07:19:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:19:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA06509 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:19:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18154 invoked for bounce); 4 Jul 2000 21:18:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.178) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 4 Jul 2000 21:18:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01ff01bfe5fd$9e74bb00$bf291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:19:33 +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 From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:54 PM > Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Now let's get back to defining psyches. > > > > > > > +=+ The definition of 'psychic call' is in > > > the law book. > > > > Sorry Grattan, not enough. > > > > If that definition were enough, we would not be having this > > discussion. > > > ### Where a definition is given in the law book > no other definition counts for anything in the > game. It is not the definition of 'psychic' that > is the difficulty here but the relationships > between psychic calls and partnership > understandings, and the attempt to suggest > that a player may have extraneous knowledge > that his partner is psyching - not derived > from authoized information , but rather from > esoteric information shared by the partners, > and not be in breach of the law. Well, it > just ain't so. ### You still confuse 'partner is aware of the violation' with 'information shared by the partners'. I can well be aware that my partner has psyched without even knowing who is on the other side of the screen. We all agree that knowledge about partner's psyching habits has to be disclosed (notwithstading the fact that prior announcement is difficult when the CC does not provide the sapce for such information). Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 07:28:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:28:41 +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 HAA06531 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13188 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2000 21:26:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.151) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 4 Jul 2000 21:26:47 -0000 Message-ID: <396256F3.89EA5477@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:28:20 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Todd Zimnoch CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <20000704064219.38155.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I start to believe that the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle governs the FLB , the WBF LC .....and the worst ...all of us . Dany Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: David Stevenson > > So, I have said that the words modify our approach to claims, and I > >was told I am wrong. I then say that I did not realise the words do not > >modify our approach to claims, and am told I am wrong. > > > > I do not see any third possibility. > > The words modify our approach, but in an unspecified (not agreed upon) > manner. (Do you know schroedinger's cat?) > > -Todd > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 07:53:39 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:53:39 +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 HAA06606 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:53:31 +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 RAA17021 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007042154.RAA17021@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3960DE23.909F9507@village.uunet.be> References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <200007031709.NAA10572@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3960DE23.909F9507@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 17:54:15 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 3 July 2000 at 20:40, Herman De Wael wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> First of all, Herman, I am not meaning to pick on you. The "Herman 1H" is simply a convenient hook to hang this discussion on. I am never even thinking about questioning your ethics. I realized that I may not have made that clear, and I am therefore apologizing for it. Oh, and I apologize for my confusing English later on :-) [6NT by opps after a 1H third seat opening, which, if psyched, pd knows is limited to 3HCP] >> >> I know, and you know, that you have enough information to set this >> contract, if it is settable. I also know that declarer, unless he is a >> BLMLer or knows Herman in other ways, doesn't have this information. > >So what ? (in this case) > Well, in this case, you have a concealed partnership understanding, have failed to provide full disclosure (surely this isn't general bridge knowledge, even though psyching 1H in third seat being likely is) of that information, and should get nailed for it. I do also believe that regulations against sharing such knowledge makes your life harder, to put it lightly. Oh and one point I just realized: L40D gives the SO the right to regulate (including ban outright) partnership *understandings* about weak one-level openings. My SO (the ACBL) does so ban. Note: even without the solution to that other discussion, that makes your 1H opener illegal by SO regs here as soon as a PU exists, concealed or not. And it certainly does, with anyone on BLML. >> Do you think you shouldn't get busted, when Herman's 1H bid, psychic >> though it was, has given you knowledge that resolves your choice >> of defence? > >Why ? Yes, you have information, what is wrong with that ? A "psychic call" is one that, among other things, grossly misstates honour strength or suit length. However, this particular "gross misstatement" accurately predicts honour strength to 0-3, given that we know that it isn't the standard 12-21 or so. As you know, I am uncomfortable with that. As you also know, I don't ascribe legal perspicacity to my comfort level. >It is YOU who is suggesting that this information is >illegal. >I don't believe it is ! > It is illegal if it is not available to the opponents, whether or not my concerns about the state of the call itself turn out to be valid ones. >> Or at least are you not bound by L16 to take the line not >> demonstrably suggested by your unauthorized and unshared knowledge >> about Herman's hand? >> > Why unauthorised ? Ok, only UI if it's not a legal call. >Unshared - OK, that's a possible problem. > >Suppose it is declarer who has to play Herman for QJ of hearts or JT. >If he does not have the knowledge that is available, he might go down. >And then get a ruling about MI and make his contract. Simple L12C2. > Provided, of course, that he has that knowledge after he goes down. How are you going to tell him after the fact if you haven't achieved prior disclosure? >I believe that there can be "knowledge" about "psyches". >That "knowledge" is AI, and should be disclosed. All true, though certain SOs make it very difficult (read illegal) to do so. >That knowledge does not make the call illegal through some >insane application of L40A. > No, but the CoP have the following things to say: "A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. habit is to be identified when an occurrance is so frequent that it may be anticipated." (UI) "Players who are found to have...an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic call, are to be reminded that [it is a regulable partnership agreement]." (Psychic calls) And yes, yet again we go from "understanding" in the wording of the CoP before the cases to "agreement" afterward. >> I stand by my statement that "one-per-lifetime" does not equal >> "habitual" or "repeated enough to be a PU". I believe that Herman's >> reductio is not valid - one can be barred from making a particular kind >> of psychic call because of an implicit partnership understanding that >> has developed *about that call* without barring any other kind of >> psychic. If that "one" wishes not to make any other sort of psychic, >> that's his lookout - barring him from making the only psychic he wishes >> to make is not the same as barring him from psyching. > >I still don't believe that putting a number on some psyche >is a good idea - whether it be one or more. Oops, sorry again, Herman. I hate English sometimes. I was not mentioning number (except at the "once-per-lifetime" part). The rest of the time the word "one" exists there, replace by "on" in French, rather than "un". My fault, I should have been clearer - or just switched to "him" or "her" throughout. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 08:06:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:06:58 +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 IAA06642 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:06:50 +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 SAA17321 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007042207.SAA17321@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:07:32 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 4 July 2000 at 2:16, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > >What can I do else? I do not field bids which experience has suggested >might be psyches, because it's bad bridge (the Laws provide draconian >penalties) but I just *can't* stop the b****r making them. > Surely you mean the b*****n? Michael From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 08:41:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06719 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:41:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17945 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 18:42:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007042242.SAA17945@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <002b01bfe5c4$e83680e0$b613ff3e@vnmvhhid> References: <002b01bfe5c4$e83680e0$b613ff3e@vnmvhhid> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:42:27 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 4 July 2000 at 15:34, "anne_jones" wrote: > >The alerting procedure it seems, is designed to ensure that if a mistake >is made, the culprit has no chance to recover. No, Anne, this is completely wrong! The alert procedure is designed to remove the need to ever read the CC, therefore obviating the necessity for you to make one available, or even complete one. *Explanations* are designed to ensure that if a mistake is made, the culprit has no chance to recover. This is why it is incumbent for you to ask for as many explanations as you can get away with, and to attempt to make the explanations you are forced to give as vague as possible, while still sounding to the opponents like a complete explanation. Cynically yours, Michael. P.S. Seriously, though, I played a very pleasant game on Sunday evening. With the exception of one pair from South Africa who didn't have enough time to navigate our unique CC (but were *very* complete with their explanations when necessary) every table I was at had 2 CCs at hand. Only one seemed at all incomplete, they weren't using them as additional chair padding or purse-fillers, and we did not get even one pair ask us about our leads and signals (though at least 2 checked our card). And I'm told that the Sunday night game is a weak field for the club. Finally, I didn't hear one partnership "disagreement" at the table - well, ok, one - or overhear anything loud from another table that would usually be evidence of such a "disagreement" at another table. Congratulations, Doubles. - mdf From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 09:31:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:31:05 +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 JAA06762 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139c9I-0001W9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:30:44 +0100 Message-ID: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:54:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Did anybody double? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk W N E S 1D P 1S P 2C P 4H! X P P 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer showed out! 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx in his score-card. So what do we do? -- 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 Wed Jul 5 11:35:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:35:52 +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 LAA07067 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.174]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000705013536.MZLV290.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:35:36 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfe622$698eb560$ae58fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:43:24 +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 How bad was 4H undoubled - 6? ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 3:54 PM Subject: Did anybody double? > > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East > reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North > said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer > showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He > said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx > in his score-card. > > So what do we do? > > -- > 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 Wed Jul 5 11:39:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:39:30 +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 LAA07086 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:39:22 +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 VAA26213 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA03887 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:39:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:39:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007050139.VAA03887@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If you > are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball > played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. I don't see any "but only" in L40A. (Herman gave a longer answer amounting to the same thing.) How about "Two hour parking, 9AM-5PM?" What is the parking rule at other times? I'd park and not expect a ticket. Except that overnight parking is generally banned, so I would expect a ticket for parking overnight. In other words, we ignore the sign outside its specified hours and look for other rules. As far as I can tell, the above is the interpretation the WBFLC endorsed at Lille, although without specific reference to L40A. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 11:50:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:50:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07118 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:50:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id VAA26301 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA04005 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:50:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007050150.VAA04005@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >Case 1: NS agree that their true range was 10-12. > MI, adjust if the opponents can get into the auction. L72B1 Thanks, John, and David G. similarly. But I don't see how 72B1 applies. Looks like L40C to me. The interesting thing about Case 1 is that it explicitly violates L40B. Some take this as the definition of a CPU. > >Case 2: South says he psyched. > CPU. Book a red psyche and award 60/30. I'd do this at the Young > Chelsea and no-one would even flicker. L73E & F, inter alia L16A might apply too, but it might not work behind screens. I don't see how 73E or F applies unless you mean L73F1, which is essentially the same as 16A. But if you were applying that one, you would give an _assigned_ adjusted score, not an artificial one. Let me emphasize: we all agree on the rulings, but what is the exact route to get there? I think that will shed a lot of light on the whole debate. So far, I don't see how we get the rulings that "everyone knows" are the right ones. Maybe L75A? But then why doesn't it apply to Case 1? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 12:04:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:04:23 +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 MAA07147 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:04:16 +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 139e0h-0005uh-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 01:29:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:28:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Comedy of errors MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pairs, Love all Me Playing TD, Acol club P 1S 2H 2S 4Da P P! P Pick-up Partner and I have agreed we play splinters. Explained as such. I have pulled a pass card, while harassing table 8 to hurry up and move. It's clear what's happened. I'm expecting a 2-1 fit. Partner has x x KQTxxxxx Kxx. OUCH! Don't ask me why he didn't open 4D, or bid 3D then 4D after 2S. Ruling please. 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 Jul 5 12:57:42 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:57:42 +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 MAA07285 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:57:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139dpd-0007i5-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:18:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:14:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes >> >> I do not see how one can adjust after a Herman 1H (which for sake of >> argument I've alerted and explained as "A 1H opener but Herman is known >> to psyche this from time to time"), provided I bid as though Herman >> *has* a 1H opener (and I have to be careful in my choice of bids). >> >> The opponents are aware of the partnership style (but it is not an >> agreement, nor understanding - indeed I can't understand why the stupid >> Belgian *keeps* doing it and I don't agree with it) and Herman has >> exercised his law 40A right. I have followed Law 40B by not fielding >> it. Law 40D refers to understandings. We don't have one. >> >+=+ In my opinion you have a classic case >of the implicit agreement (that Herman >will psyche in this position) per Law 75B. I think that this is where we part company. I clearly have an obligation to disclose it. I will be unaware of the violation because I don't *know* that it's been done (per L75B) and I won't cater for it. My view is that it becomes illegal if I am aware *on this occasion* that he has done it. I think now I have to call the TD and explain that I have become aware by 'illegal means' (remark, tempo or the like) that partner has again perpetrated a particular known psyche which is contrary to my Law 75B obligations. To me an agreement suggests that we have discussed or experienced how to take advantage of a systemic bid, not one which is non-systemic. ie if partner starts using splinters in an area where I thought we used jump-fits then I have an implicit agreement about this, and I *can* and *shall* use this to our advantage (together with full disclosure). In the case of the Herman 1H I *cannot* and *must not* do so Don't get me wrong, I jump on people who could even be construed to have taken advantage of the Herman 1H. That *is* a CPU, and fetches a PP. I'd jump on myself too and so I believe would Herman. >It has happened repeatedly, you both are >aware of it. The fact that you do not field >it is neither here nor there. Let me add >that I am intrigued to know whether the >fact that John will not psyche in this >position then establishes that you are in >breach OB 9.1.2 My psyche here is 3-5, which is a treatment :)) (you are certainly in >breach of OB 3.1.1. Disagree, the opponents have had it disclosed to them, but that in itself does *not* make it an agreement. - the practice is >admitted - and I wonder about 6.1.2). It's not systemic - that's why I have to be careful in my choice of bids, not to be seen to be making allowance. I am not controlling the psyche. I've discussed this sort of position with Max Bavin, with David Stevenson and many TD's many times, and I still have not attained a sustainable conclusion. Don't give up on Herman and me, guys, I think we'd like to be convinced. It would be easier. cheers John > ~ 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 Wed Jul 5 13:15:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:15:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from ppp-161.erielink.com (root@ppp-161.erielink.com [216.190.230.161]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07326 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:15:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by ppp-172.erielink.com (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA03437 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:14:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:14:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Alert? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This seems so easy, I'm surprised there are so many different answers. There are two principles: . The opponents are entitled to know our *agreements* . Partner's alerts (or lack thereof) are UI to me. So, [1] I don't alert the 2H bid; systemically it's natural. Transfer? Systemically there *was* no transfer; partner's failure to alert has provided me with UI that 2S is likely to be more successful. Clearly, [2] I must pass. In the second case, partner has again given me UI; his alert "woke me up". I must give correct information to the opponents as to our agreements, so I [3] do not alert the 2H bid. However, if our agreements are that systems are on over NT overcalls, I should [4] complete what I originally would have believed to be a transfer. The regulation cited in part two seems to follow directly from the two principles above (which are grounded in the Laws themselves). So [5] none of my answers would change. I believe [6] that the regulation is reasonably clear (but such things always seem more clear to those that already believe this regulation follows from the Laws :-)). Bruce : David Stevenson mean to write: : RHO You LHO CHO : : 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H : : Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT :actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! : A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H :response to 1NT is not. : :[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? :[2] Do you complete the transfer? : : Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The :bidding is the same. : :[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? :[4] Do you complete the transfer? : --------- : Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with : this, and it reads as follows: : : 3.3.1 : If as a result of your partner's : explanation you realise you have misbid, : you must continue to call as if in : ignorance of the correct meaning of your : call, until it is obvious from the : auction that something is amiss. : Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, : and explain, if asked, your partner's : calls solely according to your partnership : agreements. (Law 73C) : : This happened under the EBU jurisdiction. So, my new questions are: : [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed : by this regulation? : [6] Do you think this regulation is clear? : [7] If you answered No to [6] then how would you improve it? : -- : 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 ~ Bruce Moore Mentor on the Lake, OH Bruce.Moore@NOSPAM.akamail.com on OKB since 1993 - brucej From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 13:29:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:29:53 +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 NAA07348 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:29:45 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA18669; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:25:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:26:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Did anybody double? To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:25:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/07/2000 01:23:41 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As TD I would make the following ruling: Under L17E the auction is still in progress. Therefore, according to L24 there are a large number of exposed cards. L24C requires East to Pass, so the contract is 4H whacked after all :-) L24 and L50 states that all the defenders' exposed cards are now major penalty cards. As both partnerships have offended, L16C2 applies to UI gained by both sides during the *original* play of the hand :-) It is possible that L12B would prevent me from assigning an adjusted score. However, I suspect that all five of us would burst into uncontrollable fits of laughter, whereupon I would apply L12A2 :-) Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au David Stevenson @octavia.anu.edu.au on 05/07/2000 00:54:14 Please respond to David Stevenson Sent by: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: Subject: Did anybody double? W N E S 1D P 1S P 2C P 4H! X P P 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer showed out! 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx in his score-card. So what do we do? -- 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 Wed Jul 5 13:37:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:37:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07371 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:37:52 +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 NAA19525 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:34:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Alert? To: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:08 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/07/2000 01:32:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] "Apparently in the EBU there does exist a regulation whihc tells me to give partner UI in spite of L75D2, so I shall follow that one." [big snip] L75C requires a player *not* to give MI to the opponents, even if correctly answering an opponent's enquiry about your system gives UI to partner. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 17:04:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07736 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:04:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis145.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.145]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FX700AI8QBBHD@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:04:25 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:04:18 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: UK UI In-reply-to: <000801bfe5e2$e34ff160$db307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000705090300.00ae4c00@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:08 04.07.2000 +0100, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >2S P(h) 3S, Green >x >Q9xx >AQ109 >Axxx > > >Do you allow a double? > > > > > >The majority view was that Pass was not a logical alternative for an >international player. > >Wow! > >IMHO that is a very big position to take. >OK Pass is not a good call but is it so bad that it cannot be considered a >logical alternative? I cannot imagine any good player who would pass with this hand. So pass is maybe not a sooo bad call but it is no logical alternative according to the EBL guidelines (75% rule). Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 17:12:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:12:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07771 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:12:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis145.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.145]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FX700F5NQNP77@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:11:51 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:11:44 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Alert? In-reply-to: X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000705090949.00a86a40@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA07772 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:40 30.06.2000 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > LHO You RHO CHO > > 1C [Strong] 1NT [Natural] Pass 2H > > Now, before you alert the 2H as a transfer, you remember that 1NT >actually means the minors in your system! Oh dear! > > 2H in response to 1NT for the minors is natural, to play. You hold a >fairly normal 16 HCP 4333 hand. > > Partner did not alert the 1NT overcall. > > A transfer bid of 2H is alertable in England/Wales. A natural 2H >response to 1NT is not. > >[1] Do you alert the 2H bid? NO >[2] Do you complete the transfer? NO. No UI so I can use my better memory > Alternatively, suppose partner did alert the 1NT overcall. The >bidding is the same. > >[3] Do you alert the 2H bid? NO. It´s still not our system. If I would tell them its TRF I actually would tell them my own hand, not partners hand! >[4] Do you complete the transfer? YES. passing would be a use of UI. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 17:41:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07854 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA29773 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:41:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:41 +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: <000901bfe580$4c217960$a05a01d5@D457300> Daivd Burn wrote: > The words: > "A player may make any call or play... without prior announcement, > provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership > understanding" > > would to a speaker of English strongly imply that a player may not > make a call or play without prior announcement if it is based on a > partnership understanding. And the words "A player may not make a call or play based on...unless his side discloses the use of..in accordance with the regulations of the SO." Imply, equally strongly, that players may make such bids providing that disclosure requirements are met (or opposing may be expected to understand the meaning). I am willing to bet that the nature of 3D in the sequence 1N-2H-2S-3D is never pre-announced and only seldom shown on the CC despite being the subject of explicit agreement. I have no problem with this but it does imply that custom and practice support allowing bids based on understandings but without prior announcement. Failure to disclose (as directed by the SO) knowledge about partner's psyches is MI - WTP. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 19:01:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:01:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07981 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:01:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:01:04 +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 KAA24712 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:49:37 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <3FXA0SVB>; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:49:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Did anybody double? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:49:19 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >in his score-card. > > So what do we do? First, we must determine if South indeed doubled. If not, then we score 4H undoubled -6. If South doubled, then the auction in fact has not yet ended - East must still pass. South exposes a card, so North must pass at his next turn (L24B). Also West puts down his hand (still in auction), so again by L24B, East must pass at his next turn. Which is NOW. So 4H doubled becomes the contract. South must lead the card he prematurely played during the auction, being a major penalty card (L24). The rest of the tricks are all played as normal. So 4H!-6 is written in this case. And concerning declarer, who claims he didn't see the double, I can only say this: Sleeping during a game is not forbidden, but is no reason for score correction (L21A)... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 19:23:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:23:07 +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 TAA08035 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:22:58 +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 LAA22229; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:21:53 +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 LAA23807; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:22:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000705113059.0089d7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:30:59 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: alerting Walsh ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello again, I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with themselves) on nearly all points. Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. Which os the following is/are alertable ? 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three ? Alain. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 19:36:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:36:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08072 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:36:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis184.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.184]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FX700MEDXC1D8@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:36:02 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:36:00 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000705113059.0089d7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: alain gottcheiner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000705113539.00ada4e0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:30 05.07.2000 +0200, alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello again, > >I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. > >Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with >themselves) on nearly all points. > >Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. >Which os the following is/are alertable ? > >1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > >2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > >3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > >4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > >I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three ? ALERT anytime. Just my 2c Cheers Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 19:45:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:45:28 +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 TAA08114 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:45:20 +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 LAA24550; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:44:17 +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 LAA05322; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:45:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000705115324.008a1b50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:53:24 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: WBF position on Psychics. In-Reply-To: <395F4097.C0B94F8B@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> <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> <00ae01bfdfb9$13ece7e0$0f5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:16 2/07/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I have not yet received an answer what is the difference >between a psyche and a forgotten alert. Both fall short of >"prior announcement", so both should be banned by L40A. Yet >you seem to want to ban only the psyche. > >So, yes, you are treating them differently. > AG : and this is one of the mean reasons why you shouldn't ban psyches. Say South opens 1NT. West, who plays natural overcalls of 1NT, bids 2D on a long heart suit in a weakish hand. At least 5 different things could have happened : 1) He psyched 2) He mistakenly thought he was playing transfer overcalls 3) He didn't see the opening and 'opened' a Multi 4) He thought *partner* opened 1NT, and responded a Transfer 5) He pulled out the wrong card and didn't notice Well, all 5 should receive the same treatment : as long as West keeps a stiff face, and as long as East doesn't field what has happened without having sufficient resaons to do so, West's action is not punishable. Else, West, suspect of psyching, could defend himself by pretending to be in one of the 4 other cases. And how would you know if he told the truth ? Alain From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 20:04:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:04:35 +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 UAA08174 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:04:27 +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 MAA26477; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:03:22 +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 MAA15349; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:04:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000705121230.008a4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:12:30 +0200 To: "David J. Grabiner" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Player's obligation to protect himself from MI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:06 2/07/00 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: > >1. If the meaning or alertability of the call should be obvious to a player >at that level even without the alert. For example, there was a case at the >1994 World Championships in which a player claimed damage because a >Lightner double was not alerted. While the alertability of a Lightner >double was ambiguous at the time, a player in the World Open Pairs is >expected to recognize one, and the AC properly kept the deposit. In >contrast, the Schipol case does not meet this standard. AG : well, wery few cases do meet it. But suits me fine (only, ACs will have still more trouble in deciding what was common enough to require self-protection. Shiver) >2. If the player knows from his own hand that an alert was needed. For >example, a player holding KQxxxx of diamonds after the auction 1H-P-4D >knows that 4D is not preemptive, and should ask to ascertain that it is a >splinter, and then double. (This should not be considered "asking >questions for partner's benefit".) AG : OK, so I ask, and they tell me it is a diamond preempt, and it appears that it was (but on a 6-card). Now there is UI. Shouldn't I have shut my big trap ? > >3. If the explanation is absurd, usually indicating that the explainer has >forgotten the auction rather than the agreement. I have encountered the >following in tournaments: >S W N >1C 1S 2H! explained as weak jump shift; South didn't notice that it >wasn't a jump. AG : OK, but no point in asking any more. And what about that case ? (from real life) N E 1S 2H South : 'yes please ?' West : '6+ cards and weak' South (incredulous look) 'it is no opening you know' West (cold and dry) 'I know' (EW play that any hand with opening values and 4+ hearts should double) Well, i wouldn't like to be South in that scene. I'd rather beleive my opponent, even if his explanation seems strange. Alain From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 20:05:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:05:52 +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 UAA08182 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:05:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-60.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.60]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04132 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:05:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3962203F.9EF00008@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:34:55 +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: Alert? References: <3961BD83.7E45A57E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would like to retract my previous answer. Herman De Wael wrote: > > > [5] Would your answers to any of the above [1] [2] [3] [4] be changed > > by this regulation? > > Yes. I have often stated that there is only one reason for > the actions of the De Wael School. Since the laws or > regulations say nothing about which law I should break (and > I feel I have to break one or another), I should be free to > choose the path that in my opinion does my side the least > harm. > Apparently in the EBU there does exist a regulation whihc > tells me to give partner UI in spite of L75D2, so I shall > follow that one. > > Does any other SO have such regulations ? > I did not read the regulation well enough. It only deals with the case where you realise that partner has given the right explanation. In that particular case the DwS and the ROTW are on the same line, of course you explain it as he intends it, because that is the partnership system as well. It is very pretty that the EBU have a regulation covering something that everyone is agreed upon. Now how about those other cases : the one where you are certain that partner's explanation is mistaken, and the one in which you don't remember who has it right. In all three cases you have to bid as per your own system. According to the DwS, in all three cases, you have to explain as per partner's system. According to the ROTW, in case one, you have to explain as if per partner's system (= the real one), in the second as per your own (= probably the real one), in the third ?????? Oh yes I remember what DWS says about that case : you must tell everything to your opponents, and screw yourself by giving partner more UI than even DWS can handle. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 20:15:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:15:12 +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 UAA08207 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:15:04 +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 MAA27890; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:15:18 +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 MAA20440; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:14:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000705122303.008a4490@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:23:03 +0200 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:30 30/06/00 -0400, Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >North Deals 4 >E-W Vul J73 > T76432 W N E S > AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P > Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P > A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P > AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P > A8 6H AP > Q9 > QJ975 > >1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning > Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. >2) regulation 10ish second pause. >3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. >4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. >5) Director called at this point. >6) 1430 for hearts. > >The TD is called and it is explained that East has paused significantly >before all of his bids. No disagreement is given, but E points out that >this first pause was no more than the 10 seconds required by the skip >bid, which is not challenged. TD proceeds to explain that "He has a >right to think; but it's ok as long as he bids." "Yes, W has UI, and he >mustn't use it." No FLB is brought out, no Laws are cited or read. AG : the first pause wasn't incorrect, of course. The second (over the double), if not too long, should be admitted. This is a difficult bidding sequence, and a very quick 3H conveys more inforation than this one. >As I^HEast thought that it was possible for W to have used UI, he called >TD back after the hand to check. N didn't think he was damaged, but E >thought it was close enough to want a TD ruling. The TD did not choose to >adjust - 6H made on slight misdefence (though I expect I would have got it >right anyway). > >Questions: > >1) If you had been the TD called at (5), what would have been your >spiel? I am pretty certain that the one we got was less than optimal, >as it focussed almost completely on the hesitator, not on partner. AG : his arguments are badly wrong (how could they be good and wrong, I've always wondered). He should have focused on West's actions. >2) Anyone consider pass a LA to dbl? 4D? 4NT? Anyone consider that >the three hesitations "demonstrably suggest" slam try over passing 4H? >What does the hesitation after 4D "demonstrably suggest" (what was going >through my mind was "what the ---- does that mean)? AG : as I said before, there is no point in considering whether pass is an alternative to 4H, because there was very few, if any, UI. By the way, 4D is quite normal (bidding is automatic, 4D is significantly better than 4H). But, over 4H, pass is now a LA ; it seems even the best choice at this point, because East advertised a very bad hand. So I would rule UI at that point and confidently so. >3) What should I do about N's 3D opener? If you had been called on >possible MI, what would you tried to find out to decide MI or psych? >Should I report it to give evidence for possible CPU ruling later (I >don't like the idea that this was anything but a psyche, but I'm afraid >that investigation would show evidence that this was not "gross >misdescription" based on partnership experience). I am not accusing >him of being unethical - a 3D psych at those colours would occur to me, >too; but there are definately those who are, at best, deliberately >vague about their preemptive agreements around here. AG : this is misinformation (on the CC), but perhaps North just took a view. Anyway, it would be right for EW to report it, because of the high probability that this 3D bid 'creates a new partnership understanding'. Aalin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 20:49:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:49:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08280 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:49:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139mjv-000MiV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:49:13 +0000 Message-ID: <5JnaX$A6iwY5Ewaj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:06:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert? References: <002b01bfe5c4$e83680e0$b613ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <002b01bfe5c4$e83680e0$b613ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: >The alerting procedure it seems, is >designed to >ensure that if a mistake is made, the culprit has no chance to recover. The alerting procedure is designed to give you a reasonable chance at knowing what your opponents are up to. It does that. Since I played for years before there was alerting I know how useful it is. It was certainly not designed to ensure that mistakes are not recoverable. Why should anyone make something up so stupid? Of course, it may be one of its effects, but that is not what you were suggesting. -- 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 Wed Jul 5 20:49:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:49:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08279 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:49:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139mjv-000MiU-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:49:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:02:04 +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> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ In my opinion you have a classic case >of the implicit agreement (that Herman >will psyche in this position) per Law 75B. >It has happened repeatedly, you both are >aware of it. The fact that you do not field >it is neither here nor there. Let me add >that I am intrigued to know whether the >fact that John will not psyche in this >position then establishes that you are in >breach OB 9.1.2 (you are certainly in >breach of OB 3.1.1. - the practice is >admitted - and I wonder about 6.1.2). I have never worried about the approach to the Herman psyche in this country because of 6.1.2: Systemic psyching is not permitted and it is systemic psyching. Whether that makes it illegal elsewhere is another matter, but my guess is that the Herman 1H is illegal everywhere that does not permit opening bids at the one level on fewer than four points. Elsewhere it needs to be disclosed - but as Herman has pointed out he is perfectly happy so to do. -- 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 Wed Jul 5 21:01:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:01:18 +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 VAA08334 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:01:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.17]) by mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000705120025.ILL10065.mta02-svc.server.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:00:25 +0000 Message-ID: <000501bfe671$6983c700$1154fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20000705113059.0089d7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:08:54 +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: "alain gottcheiner" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:30 AM Subject: alerting Walsh ? > Hello again, > > I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. > > Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with > themselves) on nearly all points. > > Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. > Which os the following is/are alertable ? > > 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > > 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > > 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > > 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > > I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three ? > I would alert 1(opps might not expect),2(Canape),but not 3 or 4.(Both are natural and bridge knowledge.) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 21:25:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:31:33 +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 UAA08243 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:31:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:30:59 +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 MAA25004 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:25:19 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <3FXA0SVF>; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:24:45 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: alerting Walsh ? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:24:56 +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, > >I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. > >Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with >themselves) on nearly all points. > >Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. >Which os the following is/are alertable ? > >1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > >2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > >3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > >4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > >I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three ? > > Alain. In the Dutch alert regulations is a chapter, which lists a number of conventions and agreements which must be alerted at any rate. Among them is mentioned Walsh, and specifically the above bidding sequences. My answer therefore is: All of them must be alerted. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 21:34:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:11 +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 VAA08382 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-62.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25179 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:33:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396311EB.E6644952@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:46:03 +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: Psyches, another try References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <007701bfe4bb$45c7c300$545408c3@dodona> <39607D8B.BB055F92@village.uunet.be> <004101bfe545$8cc83b60$8e5608c3@dodona> <3961B115.31320AAD@village.uunet.be> <00c301bfe5fa$db5aaa00$835408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ You can disclose it. Write it on your CC. Then it > > > is subject to the regulations, whatever they happen > > > to be for the tournament, established under Law 40D. > > > The law does not say you may not have the understanding, > > > it says that if you have it you must disclose it. The > > > regulations on the other hand may or may not allow it, > > > depending what it is and what the ethos of the > > > tournament is. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > And then it turns into an agreement, which, as a weak > > opening, is banned. > > > > I am saying that there must be some middle ground. > > > > There is "knowledge" about psyches. That knowledge must be > > disclosed. > > Therefor, that knowledge must be disclosable. > > At the current state of practice, it cannot be disclosable, > > while remaining unbanned. > > > > I want to break that link. > > > > Do you agree that there must be some such middle ground ? > > > +=+ I agree that there *can* be some such middle > ground. I think the position in the WBF Conditions of > Contest is one attempt to find middle ground. But I > defend the right of each regulating authority to > determine a position for itself, according to its view > of the general interests of its tournament entrants > and the will, determined democratically, of its > members. Whether psychic actions based on > previously disclosed partnership understandings > are to be permitted is, in my view, rightly a > matter for the NBO, SO, Regulating Authority. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks Grattan, for admitting that we are not completely black vs white. However, I don't think you are right with regards to the last sentence. I don't think an SO should be able to ban psyching. My middle ground is of "psyches", which do contain a degree of "knowledge". Since these are psyches, the SO should not be able to ban them. I believe an SO has the right to issue guidelines as to when a psyche becomes a systemic, and I believe they should do so. But they should realise that the mere fact of the possession of "knowledge" can never be enough. It is the nature of the knowledge, and the system surrounding the action, that can turn a psyche into a systemic. One other comment about what you wrote : (repeated) > members. Whether psychic actions based on > previously disclosed partnership understandings > are to be permitted is, in my view, rightly a > matter for the NBO, SO, Regulating Authority. There can be no psychic actions based on partnership understandings. By the very nature of L40A, these are systemics. There are psychic actions about which partnership experience exists. Not the same thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 21:34:16 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08385 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-62.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25197 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:33:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39631720.D7FE47F0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:08:16 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <395F451C.FC8F02A7@village.uunet.be> <200007031709.NAA10572@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3960DE23.909F9507@village.uunet.be> <200007042154.RAA17021@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Michael, Michael Farebrother wrote: > > On 3 July 2000 at 20:40, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Michael Farebrother wrote: > >> > First of all, Herman, I am not meaning to pick on you. The "Herman 1H" > is simply a convenient hook to hang this discussion on. I am never > even thinking about questioning your ethics. I realized that I may not > have made that clear, and I am therefore apologizing for it. Oh, and I > apologize for my confusing English later on :-) > Oh, it was perfectly clear. I felt in no way offended, rest assured. I myself am still struggling with this problem. I feel it should be allowed, but I don't know why. > [6NT by opps after a 1H third seat opening, which, if psyched, pd knows > is limited to 3HCP] > >> > >> I know, and you know, that you have enough information to set this > >> contract, if it is settable. I also know that declarer, unless he is a > >> BLMLer or knows Herman in other ways, doesn't have this information. > > > >So what ? (in this case) > > > Well, in this case, you have a concealed partnership understanding, have > failed to provide full disclosure (surely this isn't general bridge > knowledge, even though psyching 1H in third seat being likely is) of > that information, and should get nailed for it. > I agree, and the MI Laws are there to handle that. > I do also believe that regulations against sharing such knowledge makes > your life harder, to put it lightly. > Indeed. I am still waiting for the counter-psycher, who has 20P in fourth and hears me open 1H and passes, just to see what will happen. > Oh and one point I just realized: L40D gives the SO the right to > regulate (including ban outright) partnership *understandings* about > weak one-level openings. My SO (the ACBL) does so ban. Note: even > without the solution to that other discussion, that makes your 1H opener > illegal by SO regs here as soon as a PU exists, concealed or not. And > it certainly does, with anyone on BLML. > That is the point I was hoping everyone would get to eventually. The Herman-1He cannot be banned by L40A. It can be banned by L40D if it is to be considered systemic. I believe very strongly that there can be "knowledge" about psyches, which is partnership experience, and therefor disclosable under L75B, but which is not a part of partnership understanding, and therefor not bannable under L40D. I believe, but I am not certain, that my 1He can fall i such a category. As I said, I am still struggling with how to define the borderline between a genuine and a systemic "psyche". I know for certain that some elements have no part in that definition. The mere fact of knowledge is certainly not enough. I don't believe that frequency alone is not enough. Nor is the specificity. That is just a part of the knowledge. "If he has psyched, it tends to be in this manner" is a normal way of expressing the experience. I think the difference should lie in the systemic ways of discovering the psyche. EKAS is a good example of psyches that are systemic, exactly because there exist ways of discovering whether or not the opening was genuine. > >> Do you think you shouldn't get busted, when Herman's 1H bid, psychic > >> though it was, has given you knowledge that resolves your choice > >> of defence? > > > >Why ? Yes, you have information, what is wrong with that ? > > A "psychic call" is one that, among other things, grossly misstates > honour strength or suit length. However, this particular "gross misstatement" > accurately predicts honour strength to 0-3, given that we know that it > isn't the standard 12-21 or so. As you know, I am uncomfortable with > that. As you also know, I don't ascribe legal perspicacity to my > comfort level. > Well, as I said, it is just part of the experience. "He has never psyched in the range 4-9 before". > >It is YOU who is suggesting that this information is > >illegal. > >I don't believe it is ! > > > It is illegal if it is not available to the opponents, whether or not my > concerns about the state of the call itself turn out to be valid ones. > A forgotten alert does not make the call that has not been alerted illegal ! This is just the same thing. > >> Or at least are you not bound by L16 to take the line not > >> demonstrably suggested by your unauthorized and unshared knowledge > >> about Herman's hand? > >> > > Why unauthorised ? > > Ok, only UI if it's not a legal call. > But I believe it is legal. Besides, even when I am playing transfers in some "simple systems" tournament, the information obtained therefrom is authorised. I see where you are coming from, but I believe the phrase "legal calls" in L16 refers to sufficient ones, in turn. But you might have a correct interpretation. I don't believe it matters, since I believe the call to be legal. If the call is illegal, the board should be taken out, and L16 never enters the frame anyway. > >Unshared - OK, that's a possible problem. > > > >Suppose it is declarer who has to play Herman for QJ of hearts or JT. > >If he does not have the knowledge that is available, he might go down. > >And then get a ruling about MI and make his contract. Simple L12C2. > > > Provided, of course, that he has that knowledge after he goes down. > How are you going to tell him after the fact if you haven't achieved > prior disclosure? > Well, he's going to discover the psyche, isn't he ? And call the TD ? Who is going to ask some pointed questions. And we are playing among ethical players, aren't we ? I don't think that this is a problem we should worry over in this thread. It is no different from any other case where we will just have to trust the players. > >I believe that there can be "knowledge" about "psyches". > >That "knowledge" is AI, and should be disclosed. > > All true, though certain SOs make it very difficult (read illegal) to do > so. > Which is precisely what I am fighting. > >That knowledge does not make the call illegal through some > >insane application of L40A. > > > No, but the CoP have the following things to say: > > "A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's > awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject > to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite > disclosure. habit is to be identified when an occurrance is so frequent > that it may be anticipated." (UI) > Well, I've never yet had a partner who anticipated my psyches. My tendency certainly does not carry the frequency suggested above. I believe that this is yet another problem : frequent psyches. The Herman-1He is still relatively infrequent. There is knowledge, perhaps, but certainly no anticipation. > "Players who are found to have...an implicit agreement concerning a > particular kind of psychic call, are to be reminded that [it is a > regulable partnership agreement]." (Psychic calls) > > And yes, yet again we go from "understanding" in the wording of the CoP > before the cases to "agreement" afterward. > I believe that understanding and agreement are to be considered in the same class as my "systemic". "experience" from L75B is another class. > >> I stand by my statement that "one-per-lifetime" does not equal > >> "habitual" or "repeated enough to be a PU". I believe that Herman's > >> reductio is not valid - one can be barred from making a particular kind > >> of psychic call because of an implicit partnership understanding that > >> has developed *about that call* without barring any other kind of > >> psychic. If that "one" wishes not to make any other sort of psychic, > >> that's his lookout - barring him from making the only psychic he wishes > >> to make is not the same as barring him from psyching. > > > >I still don't believe that putting a number on some psyche > >is a good idea - whether it be one or more. > > Oops, sorry again, Herman. I hate English sometimes. I was not > mentioning number (except at the "once-per-lifetime" part). The rest of > the time the word "one" exists there, replace by "on" in French, rather > than "un". My fault, I should have been clearer - or just switched to > "him" or "her" throughout. > Oh, I quite understood the "one" bit. I was argumenting that you cannot change "once" to "twice" or even "thrice" and have a valid regulation. That simply targets frequent partnerships. I firmly believe that something that is legal once, should be legal again. There must be some qualitative change before there can be a change in the ruling. In the words of the CoP : > habit is to be identified when an occurrance is so frequent > that it may be anticipated." (UI) There has been a qualitative change : the anticipation > Michael. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 21:34:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08404 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-62.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25299 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39631ABA.9D3FC116@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:23:38 +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: alerting Walsh ? References: <3.0.6.32.20000705113059.0089d7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Alain, alain gottcheiner wrote: > > Hello again, > > I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. > Alerting is a national matter, so we need the national alert procedure. Which, fortunately, I know rather well. > Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with > themselves) on nearly all points. > Only I disagree with myself. Violently sometimes. > Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. > Which os the following is/are alertable ? > > 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > alertable, as it says something more than that Diamonds is the lowest 4-card suit. > 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > alertable, the principle of bidding longest then lowest is incorporated in the Belgian AP. > 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > alertable. Says something about clubs as well as the major. > 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > alertable. a four card suit is being bypassed. > I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three ? > > Alain. Equally obvious. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 22:21:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08399 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-62.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25281 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3963191D.19B52A83@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:16:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Alert? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > L75C requires a player *not* to give MI to the opponents, even if correctly > answering an opponent's enquiry about your system gives UI to partner. > L75D requires a player *not* to give UI to the partner, even if incorrectly answering an opponent's enquiry about your system gives MI to opponents. Sorry Richard, the situation is not covered in the Laws. You are forced to break one Law or another. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 22:41:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:41:19 +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 WAA08669 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:41:11 +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 e65Cf0k07925 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 08:41:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 08:42:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:10 PM 7/2/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >I imagine Steve is trying to tell David that that might be the case. We > >recently had a very active debate on this very point, and it has not, at > >least yet, reached a consensus. We know that when adjudicating claims, we > >do not impose on the claimer any "irrational" line. The still-open > >question is whether the footnote tells us that what is "irrational" depends > >on the class of player involved, or specifically that it does not -- that > >the fact that a play that might be common or usual for a lesser player but > >careless or inferior for a better player (even extremely so) doesn't affect > >whether or not it is "irrational". > > When we had the debate I did not realise that part of some people's >view was that those words in the footnote were completely without >meaning. I think David really means "without effect"; he is saying that, if the "irrational-means-irrational" camp were correct, the existence of the footnote would make no difference to the interpretation or applicaton of L69-71. I agree. What the footnote does do, however, is provide *clarification*, i.e. provide guidance intended to help the reader come to the correct interpretation of the intent of the law as written. This is very different from "without meaning". Isn't that what footnotes usually do -- clarify or expand upon statements in the body of a text whose meaning is as written without the footnote? If the writers who added the footnote intended to make the laws mean something different from what they would be without it, as opposed to merely clarifying them, why would they have, rather oddly, used a footnote instead of simply writing the intended change into the texts of the laws? I view the addition of the footnote as not dissimilar to the substitution of "demonstrably" into L16A. I believe that without the footnote, the laws would be subject to being commonly misapplied along "it's not irrational for you but it would be irrational for Meckstroth" lines, and the footnote is intended to tell us specifically not to do that. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 23:02:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:02:32 +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 XAA08734 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:02:25 +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 e65D2Co90520 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:02:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705085245.00aec7f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:03:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <001301bfe51f$9f55a400$4947073e@D457300> References: <1.5.4.32.20000702161138.008688ec@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 PM 7/3/00, David wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > Henry Sun wrote: > > >At 02:30 PM 6/30/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >>North Deals 4 > > >>E-W Vul J73 > > >> T76432 W N E S > > >> AKQT9 T32 J62 3D(1) P(2) P > > >> Q964 KT52 X P 3H(3) P > > >> A KJ85 4D P 4H(4)(5) P > > >> AK4 8753 86 4NT(6) P 5C(6) P > > >> A8 6H AP > > >> Q9 > > >> QJ975 > > >> > > >>1) The CC says they are playing "Sound" preempts - usually meaning > > >> Rule of 2 and 3 or Rule of 2, 3, 4 around here. > > >>2) regulation 10ish second pause. > > >>3) proabaly about 4 or 5 second pause. > > >>4) probably a little more than 10 second pause. > > >>5) Director called at this point. > > >>6) 1430 for hearts. > >[snip] > >I think that a player who hears 3H, cue bids over it, hears 4H, and >*then* bids Blackwood is using information from his partner's tempo. >He must be. Otherwise, why did he not bid Blackwood over 3H? What >additional information does the player have that has caused him to >re-evaluate his hand? What, in short, did 4H show that 3H did not >show? On the other hand, a slow 4H showed plenty that 3H did not show. > >While the rest of DWS's analysis is sound enough, and while the >question of misinformation may need to be addressed, this West player >has convicted himself by his own actions of a breach of Law 73. This is far from clear. Playing with a partner familiar with the local style (Washington DC area) but with whom I've made no specific agreements to cover cases like this, I would be concerned that 4NT over 3H would be ambiguous -- might be ordinary Blackwood for aces; might even be natural. But almost everybody around here plays that a cue bid below game, when the only suit bid naturally by the partnership was partner's last bid, can only be either setting partner's suit as trump or asking for a stopper for 3NT. Since 4D can't be the latter, it would be easy to bid 4D first, making the follow-up 4NT unambiguously RCKB for hearts. I don't really think this is germane to the ruling in this case, but I don't think the ruling should depend on reading too much into the fact that W did not choose to bid 4NT directly over 3H. 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 Jul 5 23:12:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:12:28 +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 XAA08759 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:12:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-63.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-63.interpacket.net [216.252.211.63]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ca128494 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:24:51 +1000 Message-ID: <000201bfe681$99795aa0$3fd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <004101bfe1a5$ada9c0e0$595608c3@dodona><000701bfe1ef$32116f60$f217ff3e@vnmvhhid><000401bfe3d2$e57d61a0$4dd3fcd8@noelbuge> <2kfJcVAkn9X5EwQ9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:34:51 +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 I'm not saying I agree with it - it is a common practice in some clubs with boards dealt at the table. Personally I hate it. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: 3 July 2000 10:10 Subject: Re: Witness for the Prosecution > Noel & Pam wrote: > >Yes to all except 4 - this is a common occurrence here, especially at > >pairs - some clubs here have an informal rule that passed in hands will be > >redealt - people pay for 24-27 boards and clubs don't like to waste the > >punters money. > > I would not play in a club like that because they are wasting my > money. > > >Personally, I wouldn't redeal a board where anyone of the players had a hand > >in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat that I would open - 11+HCP or 10 and a 6 card > >major. Pearson points rule for 4th seat openings. > > Why should it be your judgement? Supposing there is no hand that you > would open but one that I would open? Am I not allowed my judgement? > > -- > 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 Wed Jul 5 23:20:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:31 +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 VAA08397 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:34:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-62.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.62]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25246 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396317D1.C2DA3899@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 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: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <200007042207.SAA17321@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 4 July 2000 at 2:16, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > >What can I do else? I do not field bids which experience has suggested > >might be psyches, because it's bad bridge (the Laws provide draconian > >penalties) but I just *can't* stop the b****r making them. > > > Surely you mean the b*****n? > Why do you write that as if it is an even bigger insult ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 23:21:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:33 +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 WAA08621 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139oOG-0006Nf-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:57 +0100 Message-ID: <+4SLL2Bt3xY5EwoI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:37:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000b01bfe622$698eb560$ae58fd3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000b01bfe622$698eb560$ae58fd3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk anne_jones wrote: >How bad was 4H undoubled - 6? No-one told me. -- 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 Wed Jul 5 23:41:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:41:34 +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 XAA08845 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:41:23 +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 e65Df7Q52800 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:41:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705093141.00adedd0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:42:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyches, another try In-Reply-To: <000901bfe580$4c217960$a05a01d5@D457300> References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <3960DF4D.B7EF26F@village.uunet.be> <4IzKXOAovRY5Ewq7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:22 AM 7/4/00, David wrote: >In the same way, if one saw a sign saying "Baseball may be played here >between 7pm and midnight", one would be advised not to play baseball >there at 4pm, even though the sign does not expressly prohibit this. I'd say that this analogy demonstrates clearly that context does matter, which leaves the question of whether laws which expressly allow or prohibit something imply their converse to be answered case by case depending on context. We have dozens of county-maintained ball fields around here; almost all of them lack artificial lighting. Everyone who uses these fields knows (or should) that it is illegal to play on these fields after dark -- the rules could just as easily have used "7 PM", as that is when it starts to get dark during the early and late parts of the county league season. If I came upon a field that had lights and a sign saying "Baseball may be played here between 7 PM and midnight" it would never occur to me that I shouldn't use the field at 4 PM; that would be patently wrong, and silly. 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 Jul 5 23:43:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08853 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:43:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.89.17]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000705144223.BASK3242.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:42:23 +0000 Message-ID: <001501bfe688$0af48140$1159fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <002b01bfe5c4$e83680e0$b613ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5JnaX$A6iwY5Ewaj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:50:55 +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: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:06 AM Subject: Re: Alert? > anne_jones wrote: > > >The alerting procedure it seems, is > >designed to > >ensure that if a mistake is made, the culprit has no chance to recover. > > The alerting procedure is designed to give you a reasonable chance at > knowing what your opponents are up to. It does that. Since I played > for years before there was alerting I know how useful it is. > > It was certainly not designed to ensure that mistakes are not > recoverable. Why should anyone make something up so stupid? > > Of course, it may be one of its effects, but that is not what you were > suggesting. > I believe that it is the alerting procedure, that is responsible for the decline in player attendances at events at all but the higher levels. I condider that I can find out what _they_ are up to if they have a well completed CC. I too played before alerting, and I do not think the procedure has solved more problems than the ones it has caused. You refer to the fact that the inability to recover is one of the side effects. If it were a health service drug, it would be withdrawn. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 5 23:58:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:58:27 +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 XAA08907 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:58:19 +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 e65DwAo93390 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:58:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705095317.00a9a930@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 09:59:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try In-Reply-To: <3961BF9B.795D919@village.uunet.be> References: <000501bfe55c$a92cca20$c13467c0@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:42 AM 7/4/00, Herman wrote: >Richard Willey wrote: > > > > what about sequences that are undefined by the partnership? > >Well, they are either systemic or deviations. They cannot >be psyches, because how can you misrepresent when there is >no system available. > >It will always be up to the TD to determine what the system >actually is and from that deduce whether a call falls into >one category or another, but it must fall into one and only >one of the 4 categories. I disagree with Herman here; I believe that Richard is concerned about calls that genuinely do fall into a fourth (or is it fifth?) category that Herman overlooks. I may make a call which I know to be undefined in our system, hoping that partner, who also knows that this call is undefined in our system, will work it out. It is not systemic, as there is no system agreement regarding its meaning, nor is it a deviation, as there is no particular meaning for it to deviate from. 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 Jul 6 00:25:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:24:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08578 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:24:41 +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 139oEB-000BVG-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:24:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 03:45:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >in his score-card. > > So what do we do? We are still in the auction I think 28 penalty cards (dummy's 13 + 5 each for the others) ? Everyone has to pass (damage?). Finally we get to the play period. Yeucch. There must be a better way. 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 Jul 6 00:38:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 00:38:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from star-one.de ([195.243.238.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09075 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 00:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from sofrant2.star-one.de ([172.16.1.3]) by gate.star-one.de with SMTP id <118082>; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:36:55 +0200 Received: from 127.0.0.1 by sofrant2.star-one.de (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:37:43 +0200 (Westeuropäische Sommerzeit) Received: by SOFRANT2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <3B7XH1X3>; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:37:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: "ACFarwig, Christian" To: "BLML (E-Mail)" Subject: RE: Comedy of errors Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:37:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John, > Me Playing TD, Acol club > P 1S 2H 2S > 4Da P P! P > > Pick-up Partner and I have agreed we play splinters. > Explained as such. > I have pulled a pass card, while harassing table 8 > to hurry up and move. It's clear what's happened. > I'm expecting a 2-1 fit. > > Partner has x x KQTxxxxx Kxx. OUCH! > Don't ask me why he didn't open 4D, or bid 3D > then 4D after 2S. > > Ruling please. Cheers John How should I rule if no damage has been established and without the opponents hands. But if they can establish a resonable claim, the ruling would surely be against you _except_ in the circumstances cited above: Having to direct while playing with an unknown partner certainly counts as an unusual hardship. Just my 2c, Christian This mail was scanned by STAR-ONE AG Anti-Virus Defense System From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 00:56:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:33 +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 WAA08622 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139oOG-0006Ni-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:59 +0100 Message-ID: <6rT6fCCoOyY5Ew5X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:01:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007050139.VAA03887@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007050139.VAA03887@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 >> If you >> are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball >> played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. > >I don't see any "but only" in L40A. (Herman gave a longer answer >amounting to the same thing.) Yeah, right. Let us take the "psyche bit" out and see what is left. A player may make any call or play, without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. Now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who does not consider it illegal to make a call or play with partnership understanding and without announcement is *wilfully* misreading this Law. Side note: I originally spelt the word above as wifully [sic]. My spellchekka objected, and offered two alternatives: wifely AND WBFLC -- 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 Thu Jul 6 01:27:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08614 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139oOG-0006Ne-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:57 +0100 Message-ID: <+oTLfuBoxxY5Ewpu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:30:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007050150.VAA04005@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007050150.VAA04005@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >I don't see how 73E or F applies unless you mean L73F1, which is >essentially the same as 16A. But if you were applying that one, you >would give an _assigned_ adjusted score, not an artificial one. As mentioned here once or twice [perhaps five or six times] the EBU has an interpretation that it is happy with that once you have decided to adjust for a psyche it is considered impractical to assign, so we always apply an ArtAS. Adjustments for fielding by Jesper Dybdal, Naerum, Denmark, and David Stevenson http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm We are happy with a consistent approach without worrying too much about whether it is the perfect one technically. It does what we want to do with no serious objections [except from outside the EBU]. Get David Burn to explain it - he does it better than I do, and then I can put his explanation on my page. But you cannot deduce that John is not using L73F because it says assign. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 01:46:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:46:02 +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 BAA09292 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:45:54 +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 139rMj-000BPK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:57:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: >In the Dutch alert regulations is a chapter, which lists a number of >conventions and agreements which must be alerted at any rate. Among >them is mentioned Walsh, and specifically the above bidding sequences. >My answer therefore is: All of them must be alerted. But Martin, your answer is based on Dutch alerting not Belgian. Alerting is subject to the regs of the SO, and the Dutch regs are not the same as the Belgian regs. Incidentally, has anyone got any alerting regs they could send me for NCBOs where I ahve not got them? I have got ACBL, Australia, Belgium, Carribean, Denmark, England, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Scotland, Wales and the WBF. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 01:45:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:45:59 +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 BAA09287 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:45:45 +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 139rMj-000BPJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: <9uJk$FAi9yY5EwZ8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:51:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert? References: <3963191D.19B52A83@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3963191D.19B52A83@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> >> L75C requires a player *not* to give MI to the opponents, even if correctly >> answering an opponent's enquiry about your system gives UI to partner. >> > >L75D requires a player *not* to give UI to the partner, even >if incorrectly answering an opponent's enquiry about your >system gives MI to opponents. > >Sorry Richard, the situation is not covered in the Laws. >You are forced to break one Law or another. Richard: this is a specific bee in Herman's bonnet. With the exception of Herman, nearly everyone on BLML who has been posting for some time know the Laws require you not to give MI but there is no such requirement not to give UI. You will not convince Herman - no point trying. Of course L75D does not say you must not give UI, but there it is. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 02:04:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:04:13 +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 CAA09538 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:04:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d208.iae.nl [212.61.3.208]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DFAC20F2C for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:03:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <016001bfe69a$73b29a20$cb053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: References: <200006302218.PAA09508@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:01:49 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Repeat of 50D2 options? > > I wrote: > > > South is declarer. West gains the lead, and East has a major penalty > > card. South chooses option 50D2(b), to allow West to lead anything he > > likes and let the penalty card remain a penalty card. > > > > (1) West cashes a winner in a different suit, East following. West is > > on lead to the next trick. Does South now have a chance to > > exercise the options again, i.e. may he require or prohibit the > > suit to be led at the next trick? > > > > (2) West shifts to a different suit that declarer wins; now declarer > > ducks a trick to West. East's penalty card is still there. Now > > does South have the option to require or prohibit the suit? > > > > I think the answer to both of these is "yes", but I'm not completely > > clear on how the Law is to be interpreted. > > OK, I got three private responses, all of whom agree with me that the > answer is yes. > > The reason I was wondering was this: The situation (one defender has a > penalty card, the other one is on lead) comes up with some frequency. > When we call the TD and he or she explains the options, declarer often > selects the option to let leader lead anything they want and keep the > card as a penalty card. At that point, the director usually says, > "OK, the card remains a penalty card that must be played at the first > legal opportunity" or something to that effect; then the TD usually > walks away, figuring their job is done. Are our TD's handling this > situation correctly? Should they wait around the table until the > penalty card is played, so that if leader retains or regains the lead, > the TD can inform declarer that they have options again? Should they > at least tell declarer, before they walk away, that "if the defender > wins this trick, or later gets the lead, and the penalty card is still > there, you will have the same options that I just gave you"? > > The way things actually happen, it makes it appear that once the > declarer selects the "lead anything you want" option, that's the last > time they get to select an option, and the only restrictions after > that are that the penalty card must be led or played at the first > legal opportunity. > > -- Adam > These TD's get confused in Law 26 that says: "at his first turn to lead." If declarer dont use that right, it has gone. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 02:25:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:30 +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 WAA08619 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139oOL-0006Ne-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:35:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:05:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Alert? References: <3961BD83.7E45A57E@village.uunet.be> <3962203F.9EF00008@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3962203F.9EF00008@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 would like to retract my previous answer. Words fail me. >It is very pretty that the EBU have a regulation covering >something that everyone is agreed upon. It would be if it were true. There has not been complete agreement in this thread. >Now how about those other cases : the one where you are >certain that partner's explanation is mistaken, and the one >in which you don't remember who has it right. > >In all three cases you have to bid as per your own system. >According to the DwS, in all three cases, you have to >explain as per partner's system. >According to the ROTW, in case one, you have to explain as >if per partner's system (= the real one), in the second as >per your own (= probably the real one), in the third ?????? >Oh yes I remember what DWS says about that case : you must >tell everything to your opponents, and screw yourself by >giving partner more UI than even DWS can handle. Thankyou. You have been very helpful here, misquoting me to prove something that has nothing to do with the thread whatever. Look, Herman, we have a problem. It *really* does no good and is no help wandering off into something else that you may think strongly about. No-one is challenging your right to start a new thread whenever you want to. Please could we keep this thread on the original subject? -- 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 Thu Jul 6 02:31:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:00:06 +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 AAA09138 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 00:59:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 139qeQ-0004Jy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:59:46 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:53:38 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:45 AM 7/5/00 +0100, you wrote: >In article <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >> >> W N E S >> 1D P 1S P >> 2C P 4H! X >> P P >> >> 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >>reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >>said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >>showed out! >> >> 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >>said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >>in his score-card. >> >> So what do we do? > >We are still in the auction I think > i think i should apply l21a. it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the final pass by declarer) result stands then imho. regards, anton >28 penalty cards (dummy's 13 + 5 each for the others) ? Everyone has to >pass (damage?). Finally we get to the play period. Yeucch. There >must be a better way. 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 Thu Jul 6 03:01:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:01:12 +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 DAA09681 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:01:05 +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 NAA13713 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA09901 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:00:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Let us take the "psyche bit" out and see what is left. > A player may make any call or play, > without prior announcement, provided > that such call or play is not based > on a partnership understanding. Fine. You might have left out "without prior announcement," too. In context, it refers to how the call or play may be made rather than limiting the calls or plays to which the rule applies. L40A explicitly permits certain calls or plays (those not based on a partnership understanding). What about calls or plays that _are_ based on a partnership understanding? > Now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who does not consider it illegal > to make a call or play with partnership understanding and without > announcement is *wilfully* misreading this Law. Here's what the WBFLC said: > "The Secretary drew attention to those > who argued that where an action was stated in the > laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions > if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The > Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the > Laws states that the laws define correct procedure > and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, > 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if > information deriving from it is used in the auction or > the play." Thus as regards L40A, anything not specified is _extraneous_. Such matters may be covered by another law, and that other law may either permit or prohibit, but we are not to read into the laws prohibitions or permissions that are not explicitly stated. Does that mean CPU's are permitted? Of course not! L40B makes that clear, not to mention 75A. In fact, I think David's interpretation outlaws any action that is based on a partnership understanding. We know that cannot be right. Or if "prior announcement" is the key after all, then there is no right for an SO to prohibit anything as long as it's announced. That can't be right either. > As mentioned here once or twice [perhaps five or six times] the EBU > has an interpretation that it is happy with that once you have decided > to adjust for a psyche it is considered impractical to assign, so we > always apply an ArtAS. Yes, I agree you have explicit guidance in the EBU, and I'm sure it works quite well in practice. I'm trying to understand how the laws apply in jurisdictions that lack such well-thought-out rules. If I understand you correctly, the EBU approach says that _if_ there's a possible L16A/73F1 violation and _if_ in addition certain conditions are met (appearance of fielded psych), the adjusted score should be an artificial one (60/30), not an assigned one. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell, and if you say it works, I believe you. What I'd like to know is how my two examples differ under the Laws alone, i.e. with no special regulations to rely on. In particular, my Case 1 (wrong CC on the table) is an explicit violation of L40B. Does that make the 1NT bid illegal? Everyone seems to think it's only a L40C (MI) issue, and I agree. But then why is Case 2 (passing an alleged 15-17 1NT with 10 HCP) different? Is it the 1NT bid or the pass that was illegal? If you take a L16A/73F1 approach, it's the pass. But Grattan and perhaps others want to make the 1NT bid illegal, presumably under L40B. Where do the laws clarify all this? I'm beginning to suspect that they don't. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 03:05:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:05:50 +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 DAA09698 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:05:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA17011 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:04:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:04 +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: <6rT6fCCoOyY5Ew5X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > Yeah, right. Let us take the "psyche bit" out and see what is left. > > A player may make any call or play, > without prior announcement, provided > that such call or play is not based > on a partnership understanding. > > Now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who does not consider it illegal > to make a call or play with partnership understanding and without > announcement is *wilfully* misreading this Law. NB - should be *prior* announcement, surely. I ask once again therefore about several partnership agreements that seldom appear on CCs and are not generally pre-announced at the table. a) The circumstances under which 1N may contain a 5CM/6Cm b) The suit quality required for simple overcalls c) The meanings of transfer breaks after 1N-2? d) When the first cue-bid can be a second round control e) The 100 odd pages of Meckwell's system notes that don't fit on the CC. Will the TD rule these illegal the next time I encounter them? Why can we not take a sensible interpretation of L40ABD together that says A player may make any call or play that is (a) Not based on partnership understanding or (b) Has a meaning the opposing side could reasonably be expected to understand.or (c) Has a meaning that is disclosed in accordance with the regs of the SOunless such a call has a systemic meaning which, or is used in a manner that, is bannedby SO regulations. Then we can move onto something more interesting - like the best practice for disclosure of psychic tendencies and whether the DeWael 1H should be classified as psyche or system. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 03:09:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f101.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA09765 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:09:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 52111 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jul 2000 17:08:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000705170835.52110.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:08:35 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:08:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Herman De Wael wrote: > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> L75C requires a player *not* to give MI to the opponents, even if >correctly > >> answering an opponent's enquiry about your system gives UI to partner. > > > >L75D requires a player *not* to give UI to the partner, even > >if incorrectly answering an opponent's enquiry about your > >system gives MI to opponents. > > > >Sorry Richard, the situation is not covered in the Laws. > >You are forced to break one Law or another. > > Richard: this is a specific bee in Herman's bonnet. > > With the exception of Herman, nearly everyone on BLML who has been >posting for some time know the Laws require you not to give MI but there >is no such requirement not to give UI. You will not convince Herman - >no point trying. > > Of course L75D does not say you must not give UI, but there it is. It's a side-effect and presumably the intent of the law. Correcting partner's explanation of your bid gives very bad UI. You might as well call out the cards in your hand. Of course, 75D does require that you solve the MI problem as soon as the UI problem becomes inconsequential. Worse, 75D is not applicable to this discussion as it assumes that some explanation has already been given. The question at hand is (was?) whether or not to provide an explanation/alert. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 03:31:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:31:44 +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 DAA09940 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:31:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:31:15 +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 TAA27699 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:07:19 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <3FXA0SV4>; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:07:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: alerting Walsh ? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:06:58 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: > >>In the Dutch alert regulations is a chapter, which lists a number of >>conventions and agreements which must be alerted at any rate. Among >>them is mentioned Walsh, and specifically the above bidding sequences. >>My answer therefore is: All of them must be alerted. > > But Martin, your answer is based on Dutch alerting not Belgian. >Alerting is subject to the regs of the SO, and the Dutch regs are not >the same as the Belgian regs. True, but they agree on this account (see post of Herman de Wael). -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 03:54:12 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:30 +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 WAA08615 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:35:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139oOG-0006Ng-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:34:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:54:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? References: <3.0.6.32.20000705113059.0089d7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000705113059.0089d7a0@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 again, > >I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. > >Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with >themselves) on nearly all points. > >Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. >Which os the following is/are alertable ? > >1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > >2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > >3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > >4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > >I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three ? Alerting depends on the regulations of the SO. Thus what is alertable in Belgium need not be in the EBU and vv. Let me dig around and find ...... [I have snipped various bits that are irrelevant] Belgian Alert Procedure (translation by Herman De Wael) 1) Basic Principles (reminder of Law 75 omitted) To conform to these regulations it is important that : - before play begins at a table, both pairs are informed about the basic principles of their opponent's system; - that during the game opponent's attention is drawn to every call which, by agreement, transmits to partner some information that differs from the natural meaning usually attributed to the call, including all agreed derived meanings. In other words every call must be seen as conventional not just when it does not have a natural meaning, but also every call which at face value is natural but can indirectly, by agreement, exclude certain meanings that the strict natural meaning could have. 2) Definition of natural calls Every call is considered natural, if its meaning corresponds exactly to the description given in the Standard Natural Bidding Systems of Belgium (SNBB - dutch and english abbreviation are the same - HDW)(see the official description of these systems), namely Majors 5 and Basic Acol (both of which have a 15-17 1NT - HDW) [s] 5) Special situations and clarifications Although the systematic application of the basic principles should make it possible to determine whether a call must be alerted or not, it is useful to clarify some situations, which might lead to differences : [s] 5.2 responses to 1-level suit openings The answers 1He and 1Sp over 1Cl and the 1NT rebid must be alerted when "Walsh" convention is used. [s] [Comment by HDW] The reasons for this is that there are two systems which are predominantly used in Belgium - (dutch - flemish) ACOL by beginners and recreational players in the north, 5-card majors in the south (and by most experienced players in the north) That is why two systems are considered "standard" in Belgium, and both are described in some detail. When announcing what system is played, the opponent is supposed to know either system, and so it happens that this is possible : W N E S 1Sp pass 2Cl pass 2NT not alerted, 15-17 and W N E S 1Sp pass 2Cl pass 2NT alerted, 15-17 If the first pair are playing 5-card majors, the rebid shows 12-14 and must not be alerted, but if the other pair play ACOL, the rebid shows 12+ and only 4 cards in spades, so if this pair play weak NT, they should alert the exact same meaning ! So, basically your Walsh responses and rebids should be alerted unless they correspond to SNBB, 5-card majors OR Dutch/Flemish Acol. There is no doubt at all that the 1H and 1S response, and 1NT rebid should be alerted because of reg 5.2. 1C-1D denies a major unless strong: is that normal in 5-card majors [certainly not in Acol?]. I do not believe so, so alert it. 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards): this is the only one that I am not sure about. But surely it is easy enough. Find out what the players playing Walsh are playing as a Basic system [I am guessing 5-card majors]. Find out whether it is normal in 5-card majors for this sequence to show genuine clubs. If it is, then this is not alertable: otherwise, alert it. My guess is that it does not normally show clubs, so this is alertable. In my view all four are alertable under Belgian regs, though not necessarily under other regs. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 04:05:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:05:28 +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 EAA10107 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:05:15 +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 OAA07280 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007051805.OAA07280@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player's obligation to protect himself from MI Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20000705121230.008a4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20000705121230.008a4300@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:05:49 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>2. If the player knows from his own hand that an alert was needed. For >>example, a player holding KQxxxx of diamonds after the auction 1H-P-4D >>knows that 4D is not preemptive, and should ask to ascertain that it is a >>splinter, and then double. (This should not be considered "asking >>questions for partner's benefit".) > >AG : OK, so I ask, and they tell me it is a diamond preempt, and it appears >that it was (but on a 6-card). Now there is UI. Shouldn't I have shut my >big trap ? > In certain situations, I need to know what the meaning of a bid is in order to make the correct systemic call ( 1H-1S-p-3H! is an example - double and pass mean different things depending on whether 3H is a splinter or a H ask or natural, even). Now, we don't have the EBU "asking shows interest" rule - so I ask every time; necessary if I was planning on making any non-pass call, and sometimes I am showing "interest" even by passing. Yes, we pass UI - but only about our system, which we should be allowed to know; I don't think I have passed any more information with the question than with just the call - and it's correct meaning in the context of the auction. >And what about that case ? (from real life) > > N E > 1S 2H > >South : 'yes please ?' >West : '6+ cards and weak' >South (incredulous look) 'it is no opening you know' >West (cold and dry) 'I know' > I have to thank the ACBL for stopping me from making South's stupid second comment (I remember from when Announcements started in the ACBL many times the situation 1NT(11-14)-2D "Alert" "You don't alert transfers any more, you just say 'Transfer'" "Thank you. Alert" "What is it?" "Game-forcing, asking for suit length information".) I now just ask "please explain?" again - which is supposed to elicit style and negative inference, and other such information. It often gets "6+, weak" again, but the third try usually works :-). And West should avoid "cold and dry" - it's much more polite (for frosty English Upper Class values of polite as well as proper) to keep a nice, polite, comfortable disposition. >(EW play that any hand with opening values and 4+ hearts should double) > And I play that this is 5+, 6 points (not any, but agressive) -> 4-loser hand (sometimes). I understand. >Well, i wouldn't like to be South in that scene. I'd rather beleive my >opponent, even if his explanation seems strange. True. But that's because South decided to assume that the opponents didn't know what they were doing when phrasing her second question, rather than assuming it was correct and getting the information she needed - which usually results in the same thing if it really was a mis-read of the auction. TD ruling - "PP to South equal to the discomfort provided by West's comment. PP to West - "You should be unfailingly polite, even when people question your attention to the game." (No, of course I wouldn't rule this way. I'd also be much more polite. But I would get the point across). Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 04:21:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:13:33 +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 DAA09793 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:13:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11260 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jul 2000 17:12:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:12:47 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:12:47 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > I have never worried about the approach to the Herman psyche in this >country because of 6.1.2: Systemic psyching is not permitted and it is >systemic psyching. What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How does the Herman 1H fall under it? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 05:04:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 05:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10394 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 05:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA18585 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10024 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:04:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007051904.PAA10024@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I ask once again therefore about several partnership agreements that > seldom appear on CCs and are not generally pre-announced at the table. > > a) The circumstances under which 1N may contain a 5CM/6Cm > b) The suit quality required for simple overcalls > c) The meanings of transfer breaks after 1N-2? > d) When the first cue-bid can be a second round control > e) The 100 odd pages of Meckwell's system notes that don't fit on the CC. > > Will the TD rule these illegal the next time I encounter them? Not to mention agreements about defensive plays, which are equivalent to bidding agreements in law. Most experienced pairs have detailed agreements about signalling, for example, and there is no place on the CC to show more than a brief summary. Are such agreements illegal? If not, which law allows them? And what about false cards, either by defenders or by declarer? When, if ever, are they illegal? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 05:21:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:19:22 +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 DAA09839 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:19:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 52908 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jul 2000 17:18:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000705171830.52907.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:18:30 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Separate Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:18:30 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Let me add > >that I am intrigued to know whether the > >fact that John will not psyche in this > >position then establishes that you are in > >breach OB 9.1.2 I assume that this is a regulation that both partners must play the same card and set of conventions. The ACBL has something similar. Why does either group feel it's necessary to ban partnerships from playing two separate cards on opposite sides of the table? Does this regulation also extend to banning the use of separate cards based on seat? For example, is it allowed that whether you are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat you play a different card. Cards 1&3 as well as 2&4 are dissimilar. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 05:33:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f257.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA09845 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:19:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 49904 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jul 2000 17:18:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:18:41 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Separate CC's Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:18:41 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Let me add > >that I am intrigued to know whether the > >fact that John will not psyche in this > >position then establishes that you are in > >breach OB 9.1.2 I assume that this is a regulation that both partners must play the same card and set of conventions. The ACBL has something similar. Why does either group feel it's necessary to ban partnerships from playing two separate cards on opposite sides of the table? Does this regulation also extend to banning the use of separate cards based on seat? For example, is it allowed that whether you are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat you play a different card. Cards 1&3 as well as 2&4 are dissimilar. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 06:19:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:19:01 +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 GAA10541 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:18:54 +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 NAA17935 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: Separate Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:18:38 -0700 Message-ID: <003701bfe6d7$5981d020$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 In-reply-to: <20000705171830.52907.qmail@hotmail.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Does this regulation also extend to banning the use of > separate cards based on seat? For example, is it allowed that > whether you are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat you play a different > card. Cards 1&3 as well as 2&4 are dissimilar. In most of my regular partnerships, we play completely different systems based on seat. (We typically play a very aggressive version of Magic Diamond in First and Second seat, and a conservative strong club system like Blue Club in 3rd/4th) We play this style all the time in the ACBL with no problems from the regulatory authorities. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOWPCTSGkJ7YU62vZEQKUPgCfRb/V4dnQDxgZc4sqzQ3Vo4ZF8EoAoLav ZJZTdYtPu7KQTF5XjJvE/tlK =P34Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 06:23:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:26:16 +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 DAA09889 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:26:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e65HKRD05744 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:20:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:20:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> from "Anton Witzen" at Jul 05, 2000 04:53:38 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen writes: > > i think i should apply l21a. > it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. > so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the > final pass by declarer) > result stands then imho. > regards, > anton For what it's worth, the situation DWS layed out has actually happened to me. And it's the only ruling that I've ever appealed. (Or to be more precise, announced my attention to appeal) Initial ruling (from a rookie director), contract not doubled. When I announced that I intended to appeal she consulted with Stan Tench whose logic was much the same as Anton's. Though in my case I'd already doubled one contact for penalty and could beat the contract they ran to in my own hand. And they really had no place to go. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 06:29:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:46:13 +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 CAA09631 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:46:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-029.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.221]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA73580 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:45:26 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:52:03 +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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> W N E S >> 1D P 1S P >> 2C P 4H! X >> P P >> >> 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >>reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >>said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >>showed out! >> >> 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >>said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >>in his score-card. >> >> So what do we do? The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty card problems by using L24. If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 06:34:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:36:01 +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 DAA09971 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 44630 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jul 2000 17:35:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20000705173514.44629.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:35:14 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:35:14 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > >> If you > >> are allowed to play baseball but only after 7pm, in my view baseball > >> played before 7pm is [a] baseball and [b] illegal. > > > >I don't see any "but only" in L40A. (Herman gave a longer answer > >amounting to the same thing.) > > Yeah, right. Let us take the "psyche bit" out and see what is left. > > A player may make any call or play, > without prior announcement, provided > that such call or play is not based > on a partnership understanding. The idea that the only actions permissable are those explicitly granted in the law is aesthetically inconsistant with the laws using the phase "a player may not...." Your statement is not inconsistent with the following: A player may also make any call or play, without prior announcement, based on partnership understandings. You need to add the idea that anything not explicitly permitted by the laws is forbidden. It seems that's the defacto standard for interpreting the laws, though the idea doesn't seem well-defined or -propogated. > Now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who does not consider it illegal >to make a call or play with partnership understanding and without >announcement is *wilfully* misreading this Law. This is explicitly almost-forbidden by 40B. 40B doesn't forbid this if your opponents are reasonably expected to understand the meaning. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 06:59:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:59:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA10628 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:59:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP084.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.172]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02041 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200007051557260950.011E971B@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:57:26 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> i think i should apply l21a. >> it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >> so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >> final pass by declarer) >> result stands then imho. About a year ago I had to rule in a similar situation where one player had bid 3NT for the minors (after 1S-P-3C* where 3C is a limit raise in spades), which was doubled by LHO; he didn't see the double, and after two passes he picked up his bidding cards. Upon being told the contract was 3NTx he said he hadn't intended to pass. The opening lead had not been faced. I ruled it a pass and directed play to continue, but, having my doubts, later I consulted BLML. The discussion, which IIRC didn't reach consensus, nonetheless convinced me that I should not have treated the bidding card pickup as a pass. I think this is the same situation, the only difference being that about 28 cards have been exposed in the meantime. I agree that the penalty cards exposed during the auction essentially force a pass from the last player, and now we have to deal with the exposed cards. Hmm ... if the pass is enforced once partner has a PC, then can we rule that the auction period ended when dummy was faced (forcing the presumptive declarer's pass) and that the play from that point has been normal? Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 07:22:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:22:05 +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 HAA10745 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:21:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 91048 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jul 2000 21:21:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000705212112.91047.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.23 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:21:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Separate Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:21:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Richard Willey" >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Does this regulation also extend to banning the use of > > separate cards based on seat? For example, is it allowed that > > whether you are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seat you play a different > > card. Cards 1&3 as well as 2&4 are dissimilar. > >In most of my regular partnerships, we play completely different >systems based on seat. >(We typically play a very aggressive version of Magic Diamond in >First and Second seat, >and a conservative strong club system like Blue Club in 3rd/4th) > >We play this style all the time in the ACBL with no problems from the >regulatory authorities. Well, it's very common, I know that. A simple example is that 1H-P-2C is significantly different than P-P-1H-P-2C in 2/1 systems. The system treats 1st and 3rd seat differently. It's more dramatic with split cards. The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the same card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other seat. I don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and not the other. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 07:27:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:27:45 +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 HAA10764 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:27:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 139whK-0004td-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:27:10 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000705232105.00f52d48@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl Disposition-Notification-To: X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 23:21:05 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: <200007051557260950.011E971B@mail.earthlink.net> References: <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:57 PM 7/5/00 -0500, you wrote: >>> i think i should apply l21a. >>> it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >>> so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >>> final pass by declarer) >>> result stands then imho. > >About a year ago I had to rule in a similar situation where one player had >bid 3NT for the minors (after 1S-P-3C* where 3C is a limit raise in >spades), which was doubled by LHO; he didn't see the double, and after two >passes he picked up his bidding cards. Upon being told the contract was >3NTx he said he hadn't intended to pass. The opening lead had not been >faced. > >I ruled it a pass and directed play to continue, but, having my doubts, >later I consulted BLML. The discussion, which IIRC didn't reach consensus, >nonetheless convinced me that I should not have treated the bidding card >pickup as a pass. > this isnt the same situation. In your case, 17e and then 25b2 has to be applied and he can change his bid for A-. Now that a card has been played the bidding period is over. In your case too I would rule writing the score as a pass, but he is recued by opponents. regards, anton >I think this is the same situation, the only difference being that about 28 >cards have been exposed in the meantime. I agree that the penalty cards >exposed during the auction essentially force a pass from the last player, >and now we have to deal with the exposed cards. > >Hmm ... if the pass is enforced once partner has a PC, then can we rule >that the auction period ended when dummy was faced (forcing the presumptive >declarer's pass) and that the play from that point has been normal? > >Best regards, > >Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net >Lawrence, Kansas, USA >Editing, writing, proofreading > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 07:32:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:32:45 +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 HAA10801 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:32:37 +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 RAA11891 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007052133.RAA11891@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <396317D1.C2DA3899@village.uunet.be> References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <200007042207.SAA17321@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <396317D1.C2DA3899@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:33:20 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Way offtopic. W-a-y offtopic. No, I mean even more offtopic than that.] [oh, and I am *not*serious*!...mdf] On 5 July 2000 at 13:11, Herman De Wael wrote: >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> >> On 4 July 2000 at 2:16, "John (MadDog) Probst" wro te: >> > >> >What can I do else? I do not field bids which experience has suggested >> >might be psyches, because it's bad bridge (the Laws provide draconian >> >penalties) but I just *can't* stop the b****r making them. >> > >> Surely you mean the b*****n? > >Why do you write that as if it is an even bigger insult ? > 1) Cue obligatory Monty Python thread. 2) For the same reason "Oh S**t" is a "smaller" vulgarity than "B****r" - it has fewer letters. Or, for that matter, s*bscr*be :-) But who am I to be judging relative insult levels? I am a Westerner (in this case, meaning from ab.ca, sk.ca or mb.ca) living in Ontario (land of the "Eastern creeps and bums") and spending the weekend in Toronto ("Get yer raffle tickets! First prize: One week in Toronto. Second prize: Two weeks in Toronto!"). Everybody (exc. some Torontonians) hates Toronto. Even 905-ers (the suburban towns) hate Toronto. Most of the rest of the country hates Ontario because the only glimpse of it they get is Toronto. You can imagine what I get from back home (defector is the least of it). And O******n is an "even bigger insult" even than B*****n. Michael, B.Eng. (cue the sheep jokes). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 07:39:52 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:39:52 +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 HAA10830 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:39:44 +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 RAA25201 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA10170 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:39:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007052139.RAA10170@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Separate X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > I > don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a > strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong > no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat > playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and > not the other. The answer may become apparent if you consider a pro-client partnership. It might be useful to them to have a bidding system where, for example, the pro gets to play all the notrump contracts (or even better all the contracts), but the authorities in many jurisdictions have decided that is undesirable. Of course a lot can still be done with "style and judgment." Some authorities used to have restrictions on system variations by seat and/or vulnerability, but those seem mostly to have gone out of fashion. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still remnants lurking about, however. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 08:10:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:10:33 +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 IAA10950 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP259.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.21]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08207 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200007051708480180.015FED4B@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000705232105.00f52d48@mail.a2000.nl> References: <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <200007051720.e65HKRD05744@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <3.0.2.32.20000705232105.00f52d48@mail.a2000.nl> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:08:48 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >this isnt the same situation. In your case, 17e and then 25b2 has to be >applied and he can change his bid for A-. Now that a card has been played >the bidding period is over. In your case too I would rule writing the score >as a pass, but he is recued by opponents. The question here is whether picking up the bidding cards (or writing down the contract) in the mistaken belief that the auction is over constitutes a final pass. I ruled that it did but subsequently changed my mind. If it doesn't, and I'm apparently not the only one with that view, then the player in question hasn't made a call at his turn and thus neither 17e nor 25b2 comes into play. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 08:22:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:02:58 +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 IAA10915 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:02:49 +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 SAA12588 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:03:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007052203.SAA12588@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Separate Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <20000705171830.52907.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <20000705171830.52907.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:03:33 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 5 July 2000 at 10:18, "Todd Zimnoch" wrote: > > I assume that this is a regulation that both partners must play the >same card and set of conventions. The ACBL has something similar. Why does >either group feel it's necessary to ban partnerships from playing two >separate cards on opposite sides of the table? IIRC, it's to ban the "pro card". Let's say, for the purposes of argument, that "I" am a much better player than "you" (Of course, this is not true - I am one of the worst declarers in the world). When I open 1NT, therefore, it is 14-18, and we are playing transfers and puppet stayman, and 4-way transfers if you run out from 1NT-X. When you open 1NT, it is good 15-17, and we are not playing transfers. Similarly, I make Walsh-style responses (bypass a 4+card diamond suit to show a major unless strong), and you don't. I play very wide-ranging preempts and overcalls, yours are very sound. I'm sure you can come up with more situations that allow us to maximize the number of contracts "I" play. Another problem is with carding - it is very likely that the only reason to play that I show right-side-up attitude only (and only when absolutely necessary), and you show upside-down, count and attitude, always, is to confuse declarer in an un-bridge proper fashion. > Does this regulation also extend to banning the use of separate cards >based on seat? For example, is it allowed that whether you are 1st, 2nd, >3rd, or 4th seat you play a different card. Cards 1&3 as well as 2&4 are >dissimilar. > Not in the ACBL, though other jurisdictions do so ban. I played with one partner "Precision when opps are Vul, 2/1 when they are NV"; and one famous Canadian pair (mostly because of one infamous member) played K-S in 1st and 2nd, 2/1 in 3rd and 4th. I believe somewhere there is a ban on "more than 2 systems" - but I can't recall now whether that was in the ACBL or in the WBF. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 08:22:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:22:26 +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 IAA10979 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:22:18 +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 SAA03558; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:21:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000705212112.91047.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:20:21 -0400 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: RE: Separate Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:21 PM -0700 7/5/00, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the same >card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other seat. I >don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a >strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong >no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat >playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and >not the other. The reason is to prevent abuse of the procedures. A pro/client partnership cannot agree to play a system which makes the pro declarer most of the time. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 10:37:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:37:34 +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 KAA11184 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:37:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 139zfA-0002VX-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:37:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:56:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comedy of errors References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ACFarwig, Christian wrote: >John, > >> Me Playing TD, Acol club >> P 1S 2H 2S >> 4Da P P! P >> >> Pick-up Partner and I have agreed we play splinters. >> Explained as such. >> I have pulled a pass card, while harassing table 8 >> to hurry up and move. It's clear what's happened. >> I'm expecting a 2-1 fit. >> >> Partner has x x KQTxxxxx Kxx. OUCH! >> Don't ask me why he didn't open 4D, or bid 3D >> then 4D after 2S. >> >> Ruling please. Cheers John > >How should I rule if no damage has been established and without the >opponents hands. But if they can establish a resonable claim, the ruling >would surely be against you _except_ in the circumstances cited above: >Having to direct while playing with an unknown partner certainly counts as >an unusual hardship. Well, it does for John's partner, anyway. :) Seriously, I cannot find any mention of unusual hardship in my Law book. I do not know why you are ruling against John on the sequence, but I am sure being the TD makes no effective difference. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 10:37:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:37:35 +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 KAA11185 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:37:27 +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 139zfA-0002VW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:37:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:52:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 07:10 PM 7/2/00, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> > >> >I imagine Steve is trying to tell David that that might be the case. We >> >recently had a very active debate on this very point, and it has not, at >> >least yet, reached a consensus. We know that when adjudicating claims, we >> >do not impose on the claimer any "irrational" line. The still-open >> >question is whether the footnote tells us that what is "irrational" depends >> >on the class of player involved, or specifically that it does not -- that >> >the fact that a play that might be common or usual for a lesser player but >> >careless or inferior for a better player (even extremely so) doesn't affect >> >whether or not it is "irrational". >> >> When we had the debate I did not realise that part of some people's >>view was that those words in the footnote were completely without >>meaning. > >I think David really means "without effect"; he is saying that, if the >"irrational-means-irrational" camp were correct, the existence of the >footnote would make no difference to the interpretation or applicaton of >L69-71. I agree. What the footnote does do, however, is provide >*clarification*, i.e. provide guidance intended to help the reader come to >the correct interpretation of the intent of the law as written. This is >very different from "without meaning". > >Isn't that what footnotes usually do -- clarify or expand upon statements >in the body of a text whose meaning is as written without the footnote? If >the writers who added the footnote intended to make the laws mean something >different from what they would be without it, as opposed to merely >clarifying them, why would they have, rather oddly, used a footnote instead >of simply writing the intended change into the texts of the laws? > >I view the addition of the footnote as not dissimilar to the substitution >of "demonstrably" into L16A. I believe that without the footnote, the laws >would be subject to being commonly misapplied along "it's not irrational >for you but it would be irrational for Meckstroth" lines, and the footnote >is intended to tell us specifically not to do that. Well, the complete opposite anyway. If the footnote meant to treat people equally, why on earth does it say the opposite? -- 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 Thu Jul 6 10:48:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:48:30 +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 KAA11237; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.222] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:48:09 -0300 Date: 05 Jul 2000 21:46:13 -0700 Message-ID: <-1249288926jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: Did anybody double? To: , David Stevenson , David Stevenson , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind 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 KAB11238 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with the application of 21a here. I ascertain first that the other three players at the table heard the double, and secondly that East made some gesture that the auction was over (presumably he/she did by accepting the opening lead without question). I see no reason to treat the cards played to this point as penalty cards, but I welcome all points of view. regards, Jack Rhind On Tuesday, July 4, 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >in his score-card. > > So what do we do? > >-- >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 Thu Jul 6 11:58:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:58:09 +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 LAA11394 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:57:59 +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 13A0v7-000Jtr-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:57:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:29:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000705171247.11259.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 have never worried about the approach to the Herman psyche in this >>country because of 6.1.2: Systemic psyching is not permitted and it is >>systemic psyching. > > What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How >does the Herman 1H fall under it? The metric? I do not know, I just judge. I do not even know what "the metric" means though I can deduce form the context. But the Herman 1H falls under Systemic psyching because he is psyching as part of his system. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 11:58:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:58:09 +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 LAA11388 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:57:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13A0v7-000Jtq-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:57:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:24:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> W N E S >>> 1D P 1S P >>> 2C P 4H! X >>> P P >>> >>> 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >>>reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >>>said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >>>showed out! >>> >>> 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >>>said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >>>in his score-card. >>> >>> So what do we do? > > > > > >The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty >card problems by using L24. >If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his >discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? Isn't there some sort of Law requiring three passes at the end of an auction? Is the TD allowed to end the auction otherwise? -- 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 Thu Jul 6 11:58:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:58:08 +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 LAA11387 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:57:55 +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 13A0v7-000Jts-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:57:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:51:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >Let me add >> >that I am intrigued to know whether the >> >fact that John will not psyche in this >> >position then establishes that you are in >> >breach OB 9.1.2 > > I assume that this is a regulation that both partners must play the >same card and set of conventions. True. > The ACBL has something similar. Why does >either group feel it's necessary to ban partnerships from playing two >separate cards on opposite sides of the table? No idea. Came from before my time on the EBU L&EC. > Does this regulation also extend to banning the use of separate cards >based on seat? For example, is it allowed that whether you are 1st, 2nd, >3rd, or 4th seat you play a different card. Cards 1&3 as well as 2&4 are >dissimilar. There is a different regulation for that, which bans it much of the time. 9.1.8 You and your partner may play two systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 competitions, and only where rounds are of 7 boards or more. You must each make out two convention cards, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 11:58:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:58:08 +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 LAA11386 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:57:55 +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 13A0v7-000Jtp-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:57:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:22:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >i think i should apply l21a. >it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >final pass by declarer) Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer writing on his a score-card is a pass? -- 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 Thu Jul 6 15:08:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:08:25 +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 PAA12235 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:08:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.144] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13A3tG-000Onm-00; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:07:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfe708$7784a6c0$905908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <01ff01bfe5fd$9e74bb00$bf291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 05:54:55 +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 > > You still confuse 'partner is aware of the violation' > with 'information shared by the partners'. > I can well be aware that my partner has psyched > without even knowing who is on the other > side of the screen. > +=+ Partner may become aware of the violation from authorised information which is obtained subsequent to the psyche - usually because the auction tells him. He may base his actions on that information. He cannot be aware of the violation at the time of the psyche; if he is there is something amiss - it can only come from something of which he is aware that he is not entitled to be aware of. Law 75B applies. Information shared by the partners which leads the partner to suspect a psyche constitutes a partnership understanding within the meaning of Law 40A. The laws offer no dispensations in relation to situations in the auction (e.g. third in hand or after RHO's double) with respect to the disclosure of understandings but it is open to regulations to permit 'psychic calls' (as defined) after prior announcement of a partnership understanding, as in some circumstances do the WBF General . Conditions of Contest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 15:44:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:44:21 +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 PAA12281 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:44:00 +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 BAA25668 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:42:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Separate CC's Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: > There is a different regulation for that, which bans it much of the >time. And cites the EBU reg. Now I'm curious. I don't see any similar regulation in the ACBL, but maybe I'm missing it. Are dual card systems permissible at GCC level in the ACBL? In particular, I'm thinking of the latest Romex book, in which Romex Forcing Club is specified in 1st and 2nd seat NV, and in 3rd at favorable; otherwise Romex. (There's at least one mid-chart convention in there as well, but I'm not asking about that. Assume individual conventions are all GCC legal.) 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/AwUBOWQcjr2UW3au93vOEQIn7ACdF9O2qicdmZJyRrB3nZRaVkAF3d4AoNvM jg7DEoysW8OM3K+AOoYtrMSQ =tDsP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 16:21:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:21:42 +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 QAA12390 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.233] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13A52E-000Pbw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:21:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bfe712$b66eb740$e95608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3963191D.19B52A83@village.uunet.be> <9uJk$FAi9yY5EwZ8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Alert? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:00:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Alert? > With the exception of Herman, nearly everyone on BLML who has been > posting for some time know the Laws require you not to give MI but there > is no such requirement not to give UI. You will not convince Herman - > no point trying. > > Of course L75D does not say you must not give UI, but there it is. > +=+ It seems to me that the footnote to Law 75 has something to say on the principle. I refer to the paragraph at the end: "In both examples, South............... ........ showing maximum values." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 16:21:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12389 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.233] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13A52C-000Pbw-00; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bfe712$b56b5100$e95608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be><007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be><004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <001601bfe595$9f613920$575608c3@dodona> <00c401bfe5fa$dc88c9c0$835408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:29:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > > I have never worried about the approach to the Herman psyche in this > country because of 6.1.2: Systemic psyching is not permitted and it is > systemic psyching. > > Whether that makes it illegal elsewhere is another matter, but my > guess is that the Herman 1H is illegal everywhere that does not permit > opening bids at the one level on fewer than four points. Elsewhere it > needs to be disclosed - but as Herman has pointed out he is perfectly > happy so to do. > +=+ Yes. Incidentally I have been trying to satisfy my mind as to the statement in OB 4.2.3 - in itself it expresses no requirement, but taken with 4.10.1 seems to establish one. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 16:45:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:45:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12462 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.67] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13A5Om-00002J-00; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:44:36 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: Comedy of errors Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:45:06 +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 To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Comedy of errors > Seriously, I cannot find any mention of unusual hardship in my Law > book. I do not know why you are ruling against John on the sequence, > but I am sure being the TD makes no effective difference. > +=+ Are we sure it is not misinformation? Did they agree 'splinters' for this position in the auction? My breakfast dish tells me it is one of those 'agreements' where the players have differing ideas as to what they have agreed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 17:29:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:29:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12554 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.228] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13A65f-00011b-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:28:56 +0100 Message-ID: <008401bfe71c$28d4d2c0$e45908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20000705173514.44629.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:30:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, another try > > You need to add the idea that anything not explicitly permitted by the > laws is forbidden. It seems that's the defacto standard for interpreting > the laws, though the idea doesn't seem well-defined or -propogated. > +=+ Blml readers have had the authorized interpretation of the law quoted to them often enough not to claim ignorance of it. The position was reaffirmed August 98 and is minuted. The game is defined by the laws and absence of a prohibition does not provide the necessary authorisation for an action. Since every NBO affiliated to the WBF has received this information any failure to make it known is down to the NBO. +=+ > > > Now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who does not consider it illegal > >to make a call or play with partnership understanding and without > >announcement is *wilfully* misreading this Law. > > This is explicitly almost-forbidden by 40B. 40B doesn't forbid this if > your opponents are reasonably expected to understand the meaning. > +=+ The fact that it is an understanding special to the partnership removes it from what is every player's expectation. 'Special' is officially defined as "additional to what is normal and general". A partnership understanding may be special or it may not be special. If it is what is normal and general, universally played, it is not special. If it is something that some, even many, partnerships may adopt but others will not, it is special. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 17:42:33 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:42:33 +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 RAA12584 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:42:24 +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 JAA21935; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:41:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA17009; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:41:46 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:41:45 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: anne_jones cc: BLML Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? In-Reply-To: <000501bfe671$6983c700$1154fd3e@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "alain gottcheiner" > > Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. > > Which os the following is/are alertable ? > > > > 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > > 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > > 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > > 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) I think all 4 should be alerted. On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, anne_jones wrote: > not 3 or 4.(Both are natural and bridge knowledge.) No, in standard, a player will rebid 1H over 1C-1D with KJx or KJxx or Jx AQxx AQxx AQxx Jxx Jx Qxx Qxx Qxx KJxx whereas in Walsh, these hands will rebid 1NT. The latter is certainly not a standard agreement and thus alertable. 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 Thu Jul 6 18:20:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:20:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12707 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA10905 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:19:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:19 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Separate 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 Grabiner wrote: > > The reason is to prevent abuse of the procedures. A pro/client > partnership > cannot agree to play a system which makes the pro declarer most of the > time. I know this is often cited as the reason for having "same system". What I don't understand is why anyone feels a need to interfere if a partnership does want to play "Standard Hog and Rabbit". The system is unlikely to be technically sound and is probably high variance as well. We should welcome this behaviour - not ban it. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 19:06:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13140 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.84.204]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000706100541.JVPC3242.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:05:41 +0000 Message-ID: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:14:23 +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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "anne_jones" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:41 AM Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "alain gottcheiner" > > > > Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. > > > Which os the following is/are alertable ? > > > > > > 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > > > 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > > > 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > > > 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > > I think all 4 should be alerted. > > > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, anne_jones wrote: > > > not 3 or 4.(Both are natural and bridge knowledge.) > > No, in standard, a player will rebid 1H over 1C-1D with > > KJx or KJxx or Jx > AQxx AQxx AQxx > Jxx Jx Qxx > Qxx Qxx KJxx > > whereas in Walsh, these hands will rebid 1NT. The latter is certainly not > a standard agreement and thus alertable. > These are Walsh responses to a (possibly) prepared 1C when playing a strong 1NT opening. In UK those who play a weak NT will rebid 1NT with 15-16 and only show major later if bidding proceeds. Agreed those that play strong NT opening may well rebid major with a weak hand.If this is the national style, and the alerting regs are such, then the opps have a right to expect, and yes it would be alertable. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 20:08:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:08:35 +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 UAA13267 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:08:26 +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 13A8Zr-000ELu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 03:31:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007051700.NAA09901@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 >> Let us take the "psyche bit" out and see what is left. >> A player may make any call or play, >> without prior announcement, provided >> that such call or play is not based >> on a partnership understanding. > >Fine. You might have left out "without prior announcement," too. In >context, it refers to how the call or play may be made rather than >limiting the calls or plays to which the rule applies. > >L40A explicitly permits certain calls or plays (those not based on a >partnership understanding). What about calls or plays that _are_ based >on a partnership understanding? > >> Now, as far as I am concerned, anyone who does not consider it illegal >> to make a call or play with partnership understanding and without >> announcement is *wilfully* misreading this Law. > >Here's what the WBFLC said: > >> "The Secretary drew attention to those >> who argued that where an action was stated in the >> laws (or regulations) to be authorized, other actions >> if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The >> Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the >> Laws states that the laws define correct procedure >> and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, >> 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction if >> information deriving from it is used in the auction or >> the play." > >Thus as regards L40A, anything not specified is _extraneous_. Such >matters may be covered by another law, and that other law may either >permit or prohibit, but we are not to read into the laws prohibitions >or permissions that are not explicitly stated. > >Does that mean CPU's are permitted? Of course not! L40B makes that >clear, not to mention 75A. > >In fact, I think David's interpretation outlaws any action that is >based on a partnership understanding. We know that cannot be right. >Or if "prior announcement" is the key after all, then there is >no right for an SO to prohibit anything as long as it's announced. >That can't be right either. I now understand the problem. It does not permit the negative - but it does not make clear which negative. Fair enough - perhaps I was too convinced in advance what L40A means. >> As mentioned here once or twice [perhaps five or six times] the EBU >> has an interpretation that it is happy with that once you have decided >> to adjust for a psyche it is considered impractical to assign, so we >> always apply an ArtAS. > >Yes, I agree you have explicit guidance in the EBU, and I'm sure it >works quite well in practice. I'm trying to understand how the laws >apply in jurisdictions that lack such well-thought-out rules. > >If I understand you correctly, the EBU approach says that _if_ there's >a possible L16A/73F1 violation and _if_ in addition certain conditions >are met (appearance of fielded psych), the adjusted score should be an >artificial one (60/30), not an assigned one. Nothing wrong with that >as far as I can tell, and if you say it works, I believe you. It is not any possible L16A/73F1 violation. It is specifically to do with psyches. The basic argument being that auctions that have not effectively started [an opening bid which is a psyche and judged to be an infraction] are not really possible to deal with by assigning. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 20:19:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:19:07 +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 UAA13298 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:18:58 +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 MAA24240; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:18:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA19141; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:18:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:18:20 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: anne_jones cc: BLML Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? In-Reply-To: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, anne_jones wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "anne_jones" > Cc: "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:41 AM > Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "alain gottcheiner" > > > > > > Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. > > > > Which os the following is/are alertable ? > > > > > > > > 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > > > > 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > > > > 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > > > > 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > > > > I think all 4 should be alerted. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, anne_jones wrote: > > > > > not 3 or 4.(Both are natural and bridge knowledge.) > > > > No, in standard, a player will rebid 1H over 1C-1D with > > > > KJx or KJxx or Jx > > AQxx AQxx AQxx > > Jxx Jx Qxx > > Qxx Qxx KJxx > > > > whereas in Walsh, these hands will rebid 1NT. The latter is certainly not > > a standard agreement and thus alertable. > > > These are Walsh responses to a (possibly) prepared 1C when playing a strong > 1NT opening. These are rebids after a natural 1C opener, using an NT range for which Walsh was designed. > In UK those who play a weak NT will rebid 1NT with 15-16 and > only show major later if bidding proceeds. Agreed those that play strong NT > opening may well rebid major with a weak hand. That is the point: not everybody plays weak NT's and there are text-box around that advocate a 1M rebid with a 4333 15/16 count. > If this is the national style, > and the alerting regs are such, then the opps have a right to expect, and > yes it would be alertable. In most auctions, responses and rebids that skip a suit, tend to deny length in the skipped suit: 1D-1NT denies 4H/S, 1D-1S denies 4H unless responder has 5+S, 1N-2C-2S denies 4H, 1H-1S-2D is (usually) not bid with a 0-5-4-4, etc. So, for designing an alerting system that does not make any assumptions about "normal bidding", it makes sense to assume that suits are bid up the line and alert anything else. 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 Thu Jul 6 20:27:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:27:29 +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 UAA13328 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:27:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.154]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20230 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:27:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39635235.C2AD097B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:20:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <000501bfe55c$a92cca20$c13467c0@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705095317.00a9a930@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 06:42 AM 7/4/00, Herman wrote: > > > > >It will always be up to the TD to determine what the system > >actually is and from that deduce whether a call falls into > >one category or another, but it must fall into one and only > >one of the 4 categories. > > I disagree with Herman here; I believe that Richard is concerned about > calls that genuinely do fall into a fourth (or is it fifth?) category that > Herman overlooks. > > I may make a call which I know to be undefined in our system, hoping that > partner, who also knows that this call is undefined in our system, will > work it out. It is not systemic, as there is no system agreement regarding > its meaning, nor is it a deviation, as there is no particular meaning for > it to deviate from. > I do not see why this should be important in the discussion we are having, but I'll reply anyway. OK, everything you say is understood. However, even when there is no "system", that is the system. The opponents will ask questions, and they will receive an answer. Even the "no system" is a possible answer. At the end, the TD will gather all evidence, and deduce the correct "system" (maybe even - no system). Then he will compare the hand with that system. It will either match or not. In the first case it will be called "systemic" (my definition). Otherwise it will be "non-systemic". Then we shall want the reason for this. In the case you cite, it will not be a "psyche". It can be a "mistake" (forgotten system), or a "deviation" (system used a bit stretched). But I fail to see what else it can be. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 20:27:32 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:27:32 +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 UAA13329 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:27:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.154]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20241 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39645EEE.2083E5AD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:26:54 +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: Statistics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There are currently 254 addresses affiliated to blml. 124 of those have joined for the first time in 1997 or before 53 have joined in 1998 41 in 1999 and 36 in the first half of this year. 9 people want to receive everything twice. The 245 others are distributed by zone as follows : zone 1 (Europe) 102 GB 31 NL 13 DE 8 DK 7 BE FR 6 IL 5 RU 4 PL 3 CH IT PT 2 AT CZ EE ES FI GL GR HU IE IS NO SE UA 1 zone 2 (N.America) 74 US 63 CA 10 BM 1 zone 3 (S.America) 1 CL 1 zone 4 (SW. Asia) 0 (all our members in zone 4 are now in zone 8) zone 5 (M.America) 1 GY 1 zone 6 (E. Asia) 5 JP 2 ID SG TW 1 zone 7 (Oceania) 25 AU 14 NZ 11 zone 8 (Africa) 2 EG ZA 1 unknown 35 .com 24 .net 10 .edu 1 These people are always invited to make themselves known. There have been 4224 messages to blml in the first half of this year, which is an average of 22.6 messages per day (27 in 1999) The top poster will not surprise anyone : post (rk) (rk99) 522 (1) (1) David Stevenson 354 (2) (4) Grattan Endicott 253 (3) (2) Herman De Wael 217 (4) (6) John (MadDog) Probst 204 (5) (11) Adam Beneschan 191 (6) (5) Steve Willner 158 (7) (14) David Burn 121 (8) (12) Anne Jones 108 (9) (7) Eric Landau 101 (10) Todd Zimnoch 96 (11) (17) David Grabiner 92 (12) (13) Schoder "Kojak" 76 (13) (16) Craig Senior 75 (14) (8) Michael S. Dennis 71 (15) (25) Martin Sinot 68 (16) (22) Kooijman, A 65 (17) (10) Jesper Dybdal 65 (17) (18) Dany Haimovici 63 (19) (9) Roger Pewick 57 (20) (3) Marvin L. French 48 (21) (20) Ed Reppert 46 (22) (61) Thomas Dehn 46 (22) (19) Tim West-Meads 44 (24) (28) Michael Farebrother 42 (25) (45) Konrad Ciborowski 42 (25) (21) Hirsch Davis 38 (27) (37) Laval Dubreuil 38 (27) (157) Henry Sun 37 (29) (26) Robin Barker 34 (30) (52) Adam Wildavsky 33 (31) (23) Grant Sterling 30 (32) (30) Peter Gill 30 (32) richard.hills@immi.gov.au 28 (34) Alain Gottcheiner 26 (35) (32) Richard Bley 25 (36) (125) Petrus Schuster 22 (37) (31) Tim Goodwin 22 (37) (75) Mark Abraham 21 (39) (39) Henk Uijterwaal 21 (39) (92) Robert E Harris 21 (39) (42) Wayne Burrows 20 (42) (35) Fearghal O'Boyle 20 (42) (50) Ron Johnson 19 (44) (24) Jean-Pierre Rocafort 19 (44) (26) Anton Witzen 19 (44) (63) Gordon Bower 18 (47) Zvi Shilon 16 (48) (61) Norman Scorbie 14 (49) (58) Norman Hostetler 14 (49) (69) Farley, Wally 13 (51) (125) Pam Hadfield 13 (51) (94) Martaandras (Andras Booc) 13 (51) (69) Sergey Kapustin 13 (51) Jack Rhind 13 (51) (60) Richard Willey 12 (56) (94) Jens & Bodil 12 (56) (48) Michael Amos 12 (56) (56) Brian Baresch 11 (59) (84) James.Vickers@merck.de 10 (60) (44) Nancy T. Dressing 9 (61) M Smith 9 (61) (36) Richard F Beye 9 (61) Noel & Pam 8 (64) (46) Tony Musgrove 8 (64) (56) Laurie Kelso 7 (66) (116) Aavo Heinlo 7 (66) (67) Jan Peter Pals 7 (66) (72) Jac Fuchs 7 (66) (37) John R. Mayne 7 (66) Phil Guptill 7 (66) (75) Richard or Barbara Odlin 6 (72) (75) ACFarwig, Christian 6 (72) (51) David Martin 6 (72) (49) Magda Thain 6 (72) Nardullo Ennio 6 (72) Ben Schelen 6 (72) (106) Bill Segraves 6 (72) (34) Linda Trent 6 (72) (106) Derrick Heng 6 (72) (69) Bruce Small 5 (81) (84) Quango 5 (81) (84) Lormant Philippe 5 (81) (41) A.L. Edwards 5 (81) (72) John Nichols 5 (81) (82) Ted Ying 5 (81) (125) Julie Atkinson 4 (87) (101) Jay Apfelbaum 4 (87) (138) Mike Dodson 4 (87) Walt Flory 4 (87) Jorge Pellegrini 4 (87) H Thompson 4 (87) Peter Bowyer 3 (93) (116) non-reader 3 (93) Olivier Beauvillain 3 (93) (103) Ian Crorie 3 (93) (92) masterit (Larry Bennett) 3 (93) (106) Eitan Levy 3 (93) (94) Rui Marques 3 (93) (125) Lino Tralhao 3 (93) (106) Sergei Litvak 3 (93) (84) John A. Kuchenbrod 3 (93) (79) Albert Lochli 3 (93) (42) Bruce J.Moore 3 (93) (103) Patrick (Carter) 2 (105) (116) Yvan Calamé 2 (105) (94) Flemming Bogh-Sorensen 2 (105) (116) Edouard Beauvilain 2 (105) (33) Jeremy Rickard 2 (105) (157) Hegedus Laszlo 2 (105) (125) Sveinn Runar (Svenni) Eiriksson 2 (105) Tommy Sandsmark 2 (105) (46) Vitold Brushtunov 2 (105) (157) Christian Chantigny 2 (105) (74) Irwin J. Kostal 2 (105) (125) Joan Gerard 2 (105) (138) Julian Lighton 2 (105) Jim Merzon 2 (105) (55) KRAllison@aol.com 2 (105) Sandy E Barnes 2 (105) (116) B.Y. 2 (105) (116) Reg Busch 2 (105) Derek Malloch 1 (123) Niels Wendell Pedersen 1 (123) (138) Trevor Walker 1 (123) Eric Favager 1 (123) (125) Dave Armstrong 1 (123) (89) Jan Romanski 1 (123) Kazimierz Chlobowski 1 (123) (94) David Kent 1 (123) (89) AlLeBendig 1 (123) Sue O'Donnell 1 (123) Dale Blank 1 (123) (79) RCraig Hemphill 1 (123) (157) Robert Lake 1 (123) (63) Robert Nordgren 1 (123) (101) Bill Bickford 1 (123) Joshua Fendel 1 (123) (79) Brian Meadows 1 (123) (157) Richard Colker 1 (123) (84) John MacGregor 1 (123) Pur Byantara 1 (123) gregory@pub.gov.sg 1 (123) (63) Peter Newman 1 (123) (75) Canberra Bridge Club 1 (123) Tom Strong 1 (123) (58) Michael Albert 1 (123) S.S. (Sandra) 1 (123) Grisbie@aol.com 1 (123) Angela B -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 21:07:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:07:57 +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 VAA13399 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.7.94]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000706110740.FQLG2121.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid>; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bfe73b$8a2f36e0$5e07ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" Cc: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:15:48 +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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "anne_jones" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 11:18 AM Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, anne_jones wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > To: "anne_jones" > > Cc: "BLML" > > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:41 AM > > Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "alain gottcheiner" > > > > > > > > Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. > > > > > Which os the following is/are alertable ? > > > > > > > > > > 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > > > > > 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > > > > > 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > > > > > 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > > > > > > I think all 4 should be alerted. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, anne_jones wrote: > > > > > > > not 3 or 4.(Both are natural and bridge knowledge.) > > > > > > No, in standard, a player will rebid 1H over 1C-1D with > > > > > > KJx or KJxx or Jx > > > AQxx AQxx AQxx > > > Jxx Jx Qxx > > > Qxx Qxx KJxx > > > > > > whereas in Walsh, these hands will rebid 1NT. The latter is certainly not > > > a standard agreement and thus alertable. > > > > > > These are Walsh responses to a (possibly) prepared 1C when playing a strong > > 1NT opening. > > These are rebids after a natural 1C opener, using an NT range for which > Walsh was designed. > > > In UK those who play a weak NT will rebid 1NT with 15-16 and > > only show major later if bidding proceeds. Agreed those that play strong NT > > opening may well rebid major with a weak hand. > > That is the point: not everybody plays weak NT's and there are text-box > around that advocate a 1M rebid with a 4333 15/16 count. > > > If this is the national style, > > and the alerting regs are such, then the opps have a right to expect, and > > yes it would be alertable. > > In most auctions, responses and rebids that skip a suit, tend to deny > length in the skipped suit: 1D-1NT denies 4H/S, 1D-1S denies 4H unless > responder has 5+S, 1N-2C-2S denies 4H, 1H-1S-2D is (usually) not bid with > a 0-5-4-4, etc. > > So, for designing an alerting system that does not make any assumptions > about "normal bidding", it makes sense to assume that suits are bid up the > line and alert anything else. > I am sure you have read some of my opinions on the alerting system :-) Certainly in EBU/WBU land, that which is "normal" is taken into account. The regulation refers to "meanings which the opponents might not expect". CCs here do not have boxes for this sequence, and certainly I, and many (I suspect the majority) of my peers, would not expect a NT rebid to deny a 4 card major suit.The rebid of a major would reinforce the natural nature of the 1C bid. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 21:27:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:27:25 +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 VAA13452 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:27:17 +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 NAA06823; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:26:11 +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 NAA18984; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:26:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000706133520.008af460@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:35:20 +0200 To: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What's right - a hesitation ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000701001356.013570ec@pop.mindspring.com> References: <200006301830.OAA19865@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:13 1/07/00 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >The question is how some hypothetical group of strong players (for we are >assured of that) would act after the 4H bid, absent the hesitation. If >Michael's venue uses some version of the European standard, setting a 25% >or 30% standard, then it seems to me unreasonable to argue that as many as >that number would pass 4H, needing little more than KTxx of hearts and out >to have at least a fair play for slam. Ag : after a preempt ? I disagree. And what if he has not ? (this remark means there is a LA). I would even split hairs farther : East could stil have 3343 or 3334 pattern ! A. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 21:45:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:45:02 +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 VAA13511 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:44:54 +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 e66Bido52541 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:44:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706074234.00ae7100@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:46:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Separate In-Reply-To: <20000705212112.91047.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:21 PM 7/5/00, Todd wrote: > The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the > same card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other > seat. I don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat > playing a strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing > club/strong no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe > in any seat playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the > regulation bans one and not the other. The regulation came about after it was discovered that a particular pro-client partnership was playing transfers over NT openings by the client only. This was generally perceived as inappropriate -- some would say unfair -- and the regulation was promulgated to put a stop to 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 Thu Jul 6 22:15:45 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:15:45 +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 WAA13632 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:15:36 +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 e66CFRo53992 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:15:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706075425.00a95bd0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 08:16:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 7/5/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >I think David really means "without effect"; he is saying that, if the > >"irrational-means-irrational" camp were correct, the existence of the > >footnote would make no difference to the interpretation or applicaton of > >L69-71. I agree. What the footnote does do, however, is provide > >*clarification*, i.e. provide guidance intended to help the reader come to > >the correct interpretation of the intent of the law as written. This is > >very different from "without meaning". > > > >Isn't that what footnotes usually do -- clarify or expand upon statements > >in the body of a text whose meaning is as written without the footnote? If > >the writers who added the footnote intended to make the laws mean something > >different from what they would be without it, as opposed to merely > >clarifying them, why would they have, rather oddly, used a footnote instead > >of simply writing the intended change into the texts of the laws? > > > >I view the addition of the footnote as not dissimilar to the substitution > >of "demonstrably" into L16A. I believe that without the footnote, the laws > >would be subject to being commonly misapplied along "it's not irrational > >for you but it would be irrational for Meckstroth" lines, and the footnote > >is intended to tell us specifically not to do that. > > Well, the complete opposite anyway. > > If the footnote meant to treat people equally, why on earth does it >say the opposite? Some of us don't believe it does. If the footnote meant that we should consider only plays that are "normal for the class of player involved", why on earth wouldn't that just be written into the text of L69-71 instead of having a footnote to muddy the waters? No, what it says is that plays which are normal for me, but (abnormally) careless or inferior for an expert, are to be considered "normal" for the purpose of applying L69-71 when the expert claims. The plays that we don't consider imposing on the claimer are limited to the genuinely irrational (e.g. revoking, playing AQx opposite Kxx by playing the K under the A, running AKQJ2 by starting with the 2); such plays are are irrational for both of us, or anyone else. Even the best players have bad days on which they make plays that would be "abnormally" careless or inferior for a player of their class. If they violate the laws by making a bad claim, why on earth would the laws want to give them the benefit of the doubt by presuming that they were not having one of those days? Perhaps David has been biased by the fact that British experts, unlike our American ones, never have bad days. 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 Jul 6 22:36:18 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:36:18 +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 WAA13767 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:36:10 +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 13AAsk-000CwR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:35:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:22:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? References: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> 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: >So, for designing an alerting system that does not make any assumptions >about "normal bidding", it makes sense to assume that suits are bid up the >line and alert anything else. But the problem with that comment [reasonable though it may be in the right jurisdiction] is that the question emanates from Belgium, and there they *do* specify assumptions about "normal bidding" as part of their alert regs. -- 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 Thu Jul 6 22:36:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:36:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13773 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:36:18 +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 13AAsn-000CwS-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <266mKRAozGZ5EwQE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:26:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.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: >David Stevenson writes: > >> There is a different regulation for that, which bans it much of the >>time. > >And cites the EBU reg. Now I'm curious. I don't see any similar >regulation in the ACBL, but maybe I'm missing it. Are dual card >systems permissible at GCC level in the ACBL? In particular, I'm >thinking of the latest Romex book, in which Romex Forcing Club is >specified in 1st and 2nd seat NV, and in 3rd at favorable; otherwise >Romex. (There's at least one mid-chart convention in there as well, >but I'm not asking about that. Assume individual conventions are all >GCC legal.) I think we are back to the problem of whether extraneous matters are legal. As far as I can see there is nothing in the GCC to either ban or permit dual systems. Does that mean they are allowed? -- 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 Thu Jul 6 22:36:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:36:53 +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 WAA13785 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:36:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e66Caak36718 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:36:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 08:38:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: References: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:24 PM 7/5/00, David wrote: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > > >The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty > >card problems by using L24. > >If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his > >discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? > > Isn't there some sort of Law requiring three passes at the end of an >auction? Is the TD allowed to end the auction otherwise? When it is common practice in a jurisdiction to make some call in a manner other than the prescribed one, such as passing by tapping the table or picking up one's bidding cards, it seems reasonable to assume that that has implicitly established a "special condition[] for bidding" (L80E) in that jurisdiction, and to rule that a player who has made such an "implicit" pass has passed. 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 Jul 6 22:51:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:51:41 +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 WAA13858 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2iniouq.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.99.218]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA14860 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000706130436.006bdc58@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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 06:04:36 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: RE: Separate Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:21 PM 7/5/00 PDT, you wrote: > The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the same >card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other seat. I >don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a >strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong >no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat >playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and >not the other. > >-Todd in the acbl, it was rationalized as follows. say that some schmuck, like me, is playing with some pro. we could then play a card in which all my bids were transfers and all the pro's bids were natural, thus allowing the pro to declare most, or all, of our hands. or we could play a system where all my bids were natural and all his were relays. or..... this would, clearly, disadvantage the rest of the field to say nothing of how it would make a mockery of the partnership aspect of the game. henrysun > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 23:01:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:01:46 +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 XAA13891 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:01:36 +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 e66D1R409586 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:01:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706085459.00ae9eb0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:02:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? In-Reply-To: References: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:18 AM 7/6/00, Henk wrote: >In most auctions, responses and rebids that skip a suit, tend to deny >length in the skipped suit: 1D-1NT denies 4H/S, 1D-1S denies 4H unless >responder has 5+S, 1N-2C-2S denies 4H, 1H-1S-2D is (usually) not bid with >a 0-5-4-4, etc. > >So, for designing an alerting system that does not make any assumptions >about "normal bidding", it makes sense to assume that suits are bid up the >line and alert anything else. This seems to assume that alert systems are designed on the premise that there can be only one non-alertable meaning for a given call. I believe that it is the perpetration of precisely this fallacy that has caused so much consternation with regard to the alerting requirements in the ACBL. In the ACBL, it is most common for a player holding xxx/Kxxx/Kxxx/xx to respond 1H to 1C, and holding xx/Kxxx/Kxxxx/xx to respond 1D to 1C; this is, of course, not alertable. But there are enough partnerships playing "up the line" style (they respond 1D on either hand) that it is not considered "uncommon or unusual", and is also not alertable. The Walsh style (responding 1H on either hand) is considered "uncommon or unusual", and does require an alert. IMHO this is one that the ACBL got right. 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 Jul 6 23:09:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:09:53 +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 XAA13909 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:09:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-120.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-120.interpacket.net [216.252.211.120]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id da129847 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:22:25 +1000 Message-ID: <00b201bfe74a$6aced800$78d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: Subject: Re: Separate Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:02:17 +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 Why? Are they supposed to deliberately play to lose as well? Maybe the Pro should have to bid and play blind folded. If they are good enough to manage the Pro into the declarer spot, is it that you are all so scared of them that you try to ban it? I was considering a ;-) but now I'm not so sure! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "Todd Zimnoch" ; Sent: 6 July 2000 8:20 Subject: RE: Separate > At 2:21 PM -0700 7/5/00, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the same > >card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other seat. I > >don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a > >strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong > >no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat > >playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and > >not the other. > > The reason is to prevent abuse of the procedures. A pro/client partnership > cannot agree to play a system which makes the pro declarer most of the time. > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 6 23:11:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from star-one.de ([195.243.238.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA13916 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from sofrant2.star-one.de ([172.16.1.3]) by gate.star-one.de with SMTP id <118085>; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:09:08 +0200 Received: from 127.0.0.1 by sofrant2.star-one.de (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:10:01 +0200 (Westeuropäische Sommerzeit) Received: by SOFRANT2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <3B7XHFP6>; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:10:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: "ACFarwig, Christian" To: "BLML (E-Mail)" Subject: Re: Comedy of errors Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:09:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, > ACFarwig, Christian wrote: > >John, > > > >> Me Playing TD, Acol club > >> P 1S 2H 2S > >> 4Da P P! P > >> > >> Pick-up Partner and I have agreed we play splinters. > >> Explained as such. > >> I have pulled a pass card, while harassing table 8 > >> to hurry up and move. It's clear what's happened. > >> I'm expecting a 2-1 fit. > >> > >> Partner has x x KQTxxxxx Kxx. OUCH! > >> Don't ask me why he didn't open 4D, or bid 3D > >> then 4D after 2S. > >> > >> Ruling please. Cheers John > > > >How should I rule if no damage has been established and without the > >opponents hands. But if they can establish a resonable > claim, the ruling > >would surely be against you _except_ in the circumstances > cited above: > >Having to direct while playing with an unknown partner > certainly counts as > >an unusual hardship. > > Well, it does for John's partner, anyway. :) > > Seriously, I cannot find any mention of unusual hardship in my Law > book. I do not know why you are ruling against John on the sequence, > but I am sure being the TD makes no effective difference. Seriously, too, the offender normally has to obligation to prove a) that his explanation was correct and b) that the bidding was not an anticipated psych So, if the opps claim damage, I would rule in a normal tournament against the offender (which happens to be John), whilst I would behave differently considered that he took it upon himself to partner a stranger in a club-tournament - which makes a fielded psych only a _very_ remote possibility and which makes a) impossible. Good enough reasons? Christian This mail was scanned by STAR-ONE AG Anti-Virus Defense System From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 00:04:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:04:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14128 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:04:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ACG9-000NYA-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:04:09 +0000 Message-ID: <3cbIjMAtF+Y5Ewbo@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:31:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes snip > >Thus as regards L40A, anything not specified is _extraneous_. Such >matters may be covered by another law, and that other law may either >permit or prohibit, but we are not to read into the laws prohibitions >or permissions that are not explicitly stated. > >Does that mean CPU's are permitted? Of course not! L40B makes that >clear, not to mention 75A. > >In fact, I think David's interpretation outlaws any action that is >based on a partnership understanding. We know that cannot be right. >Or if "prior announcement" is the key after all, then there is >no right for an SO to prohibit anything as long as it's announced. >That can't be right either. > >> As mentioned here once or twice [perhaps five or six times] the EBU >> has an interpretation that it is happy with that once you have decided >> to adjust for a psyche it is considered impractical to assign, so we >> always apply an ArtAS. > >Yes, I agree you have explicit guidance in the EBU, and I'm sure it >works quite well in practice. I'm trying to understand how the laws >apply in jurisdictions that lack such well-thought-out rules. It works well and I have used it a number of times. > >If I understand you correctly, the EBU approach says that _if_ there's >a possible L16A/73F1 violation and _if_ in addition certain conditions >are met (appearance of fielded psych), the adjusted score should be an >artificial one (60/30), not an assigned one. Nothing wrong with that >as far as I can tell, and if you say it works, I believe you. > >What I'd like to know is how my two examples differ under the Laws >alone, i.e. with no special regulations to rely on. In particular, my >Case 1 (wrong CC on the table) is an explicit violation of L40B. Does >that make the 1NT bid illegal? Everyone seems to think it's only a >L40C (MI) issue, and I agree. But then why is Case 2 (passing an >alleged 15-17 1NT with 10 HCP) different? Is it the 1NT bid or the >pass that was illegal? If you take a L16A/73F1 approach, it's the >pass. But Grattan and perhaps others want to make the 1NT bid illegal, >presumably under L40B. > >Where do the laws clarify all this? I'm beginning to suspect that >they don't. The pass is evidence of a CPU, hence I can get them. 73F1/16A. There's an element of 40B in there too, if they've opened the mini before. -- 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 Jul 7 00:18:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:18:00 +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 AAA14178 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07128 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:25:31 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <00bc01bfe754$a10fce60$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Non Lows question Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:15:24 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Can anybody help me with finding the file "WBF Convention Booklet" in the Internet ? I know that it must be contained on the WBF CCE or may be obtained from http://bridge.ecats.co.uk. [in the Documents section]. May be it is my own mistake, but I can't find it in the both pages. Do anybody know a link to this file? Thank you in advance Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 00:22:09 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14052 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.203]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10684 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:41:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39647556.BAB96EAC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:02:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How > >does the Herman 1H fall under it? > > > But the Herman 1H falls under Systemic psyching because he is psyching > as part of his system. > Come on David, you can do better than that. With an answer like that you really need to define the word system. Besides, just what is "systemic psyching" ? A systemic or a psyche ? Really David, this reply is getting us nowhere really fast, and in circles at that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 00:49:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 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 AAA14275 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 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 HAA20180; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:44:24 -0700 Message-Id: <200007061444.HAA20180@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:52:14 PDT." Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 07:44:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Well, the complete opposite anyway. > > If the footnote meant to treat people equally, why on earth does it > say the opposite? Good point. I haven't been paying much attention to this punctuation issue, but now that I think about it, it does seem odd that the person who wrote this footnote, if he wanted the same law to apply equally to everyone regardless of ability, would bother to include the phrase "for the class of player involved", which would be irrelevant to their intention, be potentially confusing, and serve no purpose. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 00:50:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:50:00 +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 AAA14287 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13ACyD-0000aG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:49:41 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000706164335.00f5cc30@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:43:35 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:22 AM 7/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>i think i should apply l21a. >>it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >>so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >>final pass by declarer) > > Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they >are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer >writing on his a score-card is a pass? > Our PK (the highest protest authoroty in holland) has established that taking away the bidding card, tapping on them or in any other way indicating a pass, without actually taking the card out of the biddingbox IS in fact treated as a pass. So who am i to act against them??? Anyway, at least in holland - at all levels - it is considered to bo nromal indicating a pass by above mentioned methods. I doubt that when one realy insists on putting a pass card by last plaer on the table you cat more than a - come on dont be a lawyer - regards, anton PS I now only speak for the way we in holland deal with this matter of course. > >-- >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 ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 01:22:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14028 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:41:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.203]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10596 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396464EB.5EBE03EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:52:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, another try References: <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > [absolutely perfect analysis snipped] > > What I'd like to know is how my two examples differ under the Laws > alone, i.e. with no special regulations to rely on. In particular, my > Case 1 (wrong CC on the table) is an explicit violation of L40B. Does > that make the 1NT bid illegal? Everyone seems to think it's only a > L40C (MI) issue, and I agree. But then why is Case 2 (passing an > alleged 15-17 1NT with 10 HCP) different? Is it the 1NT bid or the > pass that was illegal? If you take a L16A/73F1 approach, it's the > pass. But Grattan and perhaps others want to make the 1NT bid illegal, > presumably under L40B. > > Where do the laws clarify all this? I'm beginning to suspect that > they don't. You're only beginning to suspect ? I've asked the question several times, and there has not been a satisfactory answer. Nothing can be banned by L40A. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 01:42:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA14487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:42:45 +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 BAA14482 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:42:38 +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 IAA28917 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:42:24 -0700 Message-ID: <004b01bfe779$ecf4f9c0$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 In-reply-to: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a > systematic psyche? How does the Herman 1H fall under it? David said > The metric? I do not know, I just judge. ... > But the Herman 1H falls under Systemic psyching because he > is psyching as part of his system. Bleah. I don't know if I am in the minority or the majority on this one, but I don't like legal systems that are dependent on this degree of subjective assessment. There must be a better mechanism we can use. (I lean towards borrowing from math myself, but thats just me) I've never liked the term systemic psyche. For all intents and purposes, most of these bids are simply multi-way bids that describe some non-continuous set of hand types. To me, the distinquishing feature between a psyche and a systemic bid is that a psyche is non-deterministic. Suppose I am dealt a hand suitable for the weak form of the Herman 1H opening and there are two passes to me. Assume that there is some probability (P) that I will open this hand 1H. The rest of the time (1-P) I chose to pass. It seems clear that if P = 1 (I always open 1H with this hand), then the Herman 1H opening is simply a two-way opening bid. It also seems clear that if P is small enough that partner does not anticipate the weak variant of the hand type, then the 1H opening is a psyche. Is it possible to define the boundary point for parameter P that defines whether or not a bid is a psyche? Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOWTTDyGkJ7YU62vZEQLrowCgm5R9kRj/0KLsdeMy8KNWNu6hE0MAoLQ1 5jhMLWx55ucO1zru3QMSu0Yw =x87A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 02:12:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:12:59 +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 CAA14749 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:12:50 +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 MAA29498 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:13:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007061613.MAA29498@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <39635235.C2AD097B@village.uunet.be> References: <000501bfe55c$a92cca20$c13467c0@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705095317.00a9a930@pop.cais.com> <39635235.C2AD097B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:13:34 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 5 July 2000 at 17:20, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> I may make a call which I know to be undefined in our system, hoping that >> partner, who also knows that this call is undefined in our system, will >> work it out. It is not systemic, as there is no system agreement regarding >> its meaning, nor is it a deviation, as there is no particular meaning for >> it to deviate from. >> > >I do not see why this should be important in the discussion >we are having, but I'll reply anyway. > I don't either, except where you state "all calls can be categorized as..." Ok - these calls are ignorable in the context of the discussion, but there are too many mathematicians here to let an "All" statement go by in error, even if "all relevant" may be correct. >OK, everything you say is understood. > >However, even when there is no "system", that is the system. > >The opponents will ask questions, and they will receive an >answer. Even the "no system" is a possible answer. > "No specific agreement about this call. Almost certainly artificial, and forcing, however. I can tell you about what (other calls would have meant/this call would have meant in [different situation]) if you wish." Michael - still livid about "full disclosure" of 4H (after 1H-p-2NT(Jacoby)-(3C)-4H) as "he wanted to bid game" yesterday. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 02:19:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:43:59 +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 WAA13827 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:43:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from dgarverick.longs.com (user-2iniouq.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.99.218]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA24200 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000706125650.006ad704@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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 05:56:50 -0700 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Henry Sun Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:08 PM 7/5/00 +0100, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "alain gottcheiner" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:30 AM >Subject: alerting Walsh ? > > >> Hello again, >> >> I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. >> >> Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with >> themselves) on nearly all points. >> >> Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. >> Which os the following is/are alertable ? >> >> 1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong >> >> 2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds >> >> 3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) >> >> 4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) >> >> I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the other three >? >> >I would alert 1(opps might not expect),2(Canape),but not 3 or 4.(Both are >natural and bridge knowledge.) > >Anne in the US, there was for a long time a requirement to alert when responder might bypass diamonds to bid a major; that requirement has now been scrapped, so here one need not alert #2. as a courtesy, i'd alert #1, 3, and 4. anne's argument (based on bridge knowledge) wouldn't apply here, since the 1M rebid after a 1c opener could be made on a 4M333 hand. (there has been lots of discussion on whether it is preferable to rebid in nt, limiting the hand on round 2, or showing the major, and that hasn't been resolved. obviously, that applies to both sequences.) as for sequence #3, i note that while the 1c-1d-1s sequence promises 5+ clubs, 1c-1d-2h promises 4+ clubs as opener could be on a 4414 hand. henrysun > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 02:18:13 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:18:13 +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 CAA14776 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:18:04 +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 13AELX-0002xF-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:17:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:50:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706075425.00a95bd0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706075425.00a95bd0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:52 AM 7/5/00, David wrote: >>Eric Landau wrote: >> > >> >I think David really means "without effect"; he is saying that, if the >> >"irrational-means-irrational" camp were correct, the existence of the >> >footnote would make no difference to the interpretation or applicaton of >> >L69-71. I agree. What the footnote does do, however, is provide >> >*clarification*, i.e. provide guidance intended to help the reader come to >> >the correct interpretation of the intent of the law as written. This is >> >very different from "without meaning". >> > >> >Isn't that what footnotes usually do -- clarify or expand upon statements >> >in the body of a text whose meaning is as written without the footnote? If >> >the writers who added the footnote intended to make the laws mean something >> >different from what they would be without it, as opposed to merely >> >clarifying them, why would they have, rather oddly, used a footnote instead >> >of simply writing the intended change into the texts of the laws? >> > >> >I view the addition of the footnote as not dissimilar to the substitution >> >of "demonstrably" into L16A. I believe that without the footnote, the laws >> >would be subject to being commonly misapplied along "it's not irrational >> >for you but it would be irrational for Meckstroth" lines, and the footnote >> >is intended to tell us specifically not to do that. >> >> Well, the complete opposite anyway. >> >> If the footnote meant to treat people equally, why on earth does it >>say the opposite? > >Some of us don't believe it does. If the footnote meant that we should >consider only plays that are "normal for the class of player involved", why >on earth wouldn't that just be written into the text of L69-71 instead of >having a footnote to muddy the waters? > >No, what it says is that plays which are normal for me, but (abnormally) >careless or inferior for an expert, are to be considered "normal" for the >purpose of applying L69-71 when the expert claims. The plays that we don't >consider imposing on the claimer are limited to the genuinely irrational >(e.g. revoking, playing AQx opposite Kxx by playing the K under the A, >running AKQJ2 by starting with the 2); such plays are are irrational for >both of us, or anyone else. > >Even the best players have bad days on which they make plays that would be >"abnormally" careless or inferior for a player of their class. If they >violate the laws by making a bad claim, why on earth would the laws want to >give them the benefit of the doubt by presuming that they were not having >one of those days? > >Perhaps David has been biased by the fact that British experts, unlike our >American ones, never have bad days. I am biased by the fact that the footnote says "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." and it would say "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for any player, but not irrational." if that is what it meant. I do not believe that the WBFLC put a footnote in, part of which is to be ignored, because some people come up with an interpretation that part of it is basically meaningless. I object to any suggestion that I am basing my view of what any player would or would not do. I am basing my view on the wording of the footnote. -- 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 Jul 7 02:40:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA14938 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:39:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA18924 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA14531 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:39:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007061639.MAA14531@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 am biased by the fact that the footnote says > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for the class of player involved, > but not irrational." > > and it would say > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for any player, but not irrational." > > if that is what it meant. Or the words 'for the class of player involved' could have been omitted altogether. The problem with this line of argument is that we can equally say, if the footnote meant what David thinks, it could have been written as: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior but not irrational for the class of player involved." Perhaps one of these forms will be adopted in 2007, but until then (or until there is an official interpretation), we can a) guess, b) follow SO or NCBO guidance, if any, c) follow tradition, or d) try to parse phrasing and punctuation. As regular readers know, I usually argue on the basis of d), and the result of that seems clear to me. (Which adjectives do you think the prepositional phrase modifies? But not everyone agrees!) Unfortunately, c) seems to give the opposite result. As for b), Gary Blaiss or one of the other high-level ACBL TD's wrote something in a recent ACBL Bulletin (April?) that appears to endorse David's view, but it wasn't clear that the article was an official interpretation. I fear we are stuck with a)! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 02:44:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:44:37 +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 CAA14960 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:44:29 +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 MAA00251 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007061645.MAA00251@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Separate CC's Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <266mKRAozGZ5EwQE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> <266mKRAozGZ5EwQE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:45:14 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 6 July 2000 at 12:26, David Stevenson wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >>David Stevenson writes: >> >>> There is a different regulation for that, which bans it much of the >>>time. >> >>And cites the EBU reg. Now I'm curious. I don't see any similar >>regulation in the ACBL, but maybe I'm missing it. Are dual card >>systems permissible at GCC level in the ACBL? In particular, I'm >>thinking of the latest Romex book, in which Romex Forcing Club is >>specified in 1st and 2nd seat NV, and in 3rd at favorable; otherwise >>Romex. (There's at least one mid-chart convention in there as well, >>but I'm not asking about that. Assume individual conventions are all >>GCC legal.) > > I think we are back to the problem of whether extraneous matters are >legal. As far as I can see there is nothing in the GCC to either ban or >permit dual systems. Does that mean they are allowed? > >From the ACBL Alert Procedure, http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm : (with apologies to those who have their mail reader parse real HTML, and to those who don't understand the tags used).
Part III, PRE-ALERTS 1. TWO-SYSTEM METHODS Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable. Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods do require, when unexpected, an Announcement (notrump ranges not within 15 to 18 HCP) or Alert (strong jump overcalls). As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. So, as usual, it's there - but buried in a somewhat obscure location. A reorganization of the regulations section (get to it from the Info page) putting all the "other" regulations defined in other sections into it, might be useful :-). Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 03:04:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:10 +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 XAA14034 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:41:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.203]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10627 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:41:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39646CB0.D64C2E45@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:25:36 +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: Did anybody double? References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Anton Witzen wrote: > > >i think i should apply l21a. > >it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. > >so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the > >final pass by declarer) > > Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they > are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer > writing on his a score-card is a pass? > It is, if he had the intention of passing. By which I mean, he cannot write down the correct contract and then change his mind about his final pass. This is exactly the same as tapping the bidding card or simply removing them, both of which are considered as passes. But if he writes the contract (say the 3NT of Brian's example) as undoubled, then no, he has not passed. Which does not solve our original problem. No, he has not passed, and there have been cards shown during the auction. He is now forced to pass, and all the shown cards become penalty cards. Nowhere in the laws does it say that these have to be played in exactly the same order. But of course that is the sane thing to do. Perhaps the law about the end of the auction should include a bit "regardles of whether or not there have been three passes, the auction has ended when dummy is faced". Then there is only one penalty card, and a true dummy, and play can continue normally. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 03:21:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:21:58 +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 DAA15099 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:21:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 823 invoked by uid 0); 6 Jul 2000 17:21:07 -0000 Message-ID: <20000706172107.822.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:21:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:21:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > I am biased by the fact that the footnote says > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for the class of player involved, > but not irrational." > >and it would say > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for any player, but not irrational." > >if that is what it meant. Taking a practice finesse would be irrational for Meckstroth rather than careless or inferior. So it's not careless or inferior for any player as there are players for whom it's clearly irrational. This would elevate judging claims as if everyone were an expert. (Sorry to be the pedant. Change 'any player' to 'some players'. But in the case of the footnote, we do not have context or dialog to work from.) Also, some have said the footnote would read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational for the class of player involved" if that's what it meant. This line of argument will simply get nowhere. > I do not believe that the WBFLC put a footnote in, part of which is to >be ignored, because some people come up with an interpretation that part >of it is basically meaningless. Perhaps if we could find the meeting notes (if they exist) for when the footnote was added, we could at least discover the original intent. Does anyone know just how old the footnote is? The only other real solution is to get the WBFLC to assert a contemporary interpretation of the footnote. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 03:50:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15167 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:50:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21507 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:50:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:40:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:22 AM +0100 7/6/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>i think i should apply l21a. >>it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >>so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >>final pass by declarer) > > Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they >are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer >writing on his a score-card is a pass? No, but I would say that a player picking up his bidding cards after two passes is a pass, because this is common practice. Many players don't bother to put the third pass down at the end of the auction, and it would be unreasonable to rule that the auction is not over in such situations. In the actual situation, if you don't rule that the auction was over when declarer picked up his bidding cards, then you must rule that declarer misused his bidding cards by picking them up in a live auction, and that this misled opening leader. Since declarer was primarily at fault for dummy being prematurely exposed, he must pay the penalty of an enforced pass. Once he has paid this penalty, the premature opening lead must be led at the proper time, dummy comes down normally, and declarer plays in the doubled contract. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 04:16:33 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:16:33 +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 EAA15268 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:16:25 +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 LAA24191; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:12:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200007061812.LAA24191@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2000 12:39:50 PDT." <200007061639.MAA14531@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:12:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > I am biased by the fact that the footnote says > > > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > > or inferior for the class of player involved, > > but not irrational." > > > > and it would say > > > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > > or inferior for any player, but not irrational." > > > > if that is what it meant. > > Or the words 'for the class of player involved' could have been > omitted altogether. > > The problem with this line of argument is that we can equally say, if > the footnote meant what David thinks, it could have been written as: > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' > includes play that would be careless or inferior but not > irrational for the class of player involved." Right, it could have been written that way. But the chance that this difference is significant is very small, IMHO. People sometimes use different word orders to say the same thing. The Law could have been written, for instance: ``Normal'' includes, for the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. or: ``Normal'' includes, for the class of player involved, play that would be careless or inferior but not irrational, for the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71. or whatever. None of this matters. The fact that they chose a different word order probably doesn't mean squat. Even if X number of people on BLML think the change in word order alters the meaning, this doesn't mean that the author thought it made a difference; and even if you could round up a team of linguistic experts who say that the word order in the footnote makes a big difference, according to the rules of English, it's rather dubious to assume that the person who wrote the footnote was that intimately familiar with the rules of English, especially if the author is American (heh heh heh). Hell, it's hard enough to find an American who knows how to use a subjunctive. To get back to the point: It's possible that the author intended for the word order to mean something significant, but IMHO this argument is *much* weaker than the argument that an author who wanted the law to apply equally to everyone wouldn't have included any language at all about the class of player. > Perhaps one of these forms will be adopted in 2007, but until then > (or until there is an official interpretation), we can a) guess, > b) follow SO or NCBO guidance, if any, c) follow tradition, or > d) try to parse phrasing and punctuation. > > As regular readers know, I usually argue on the basis of d), and the > result of that seems clear to me. (Which adjectives do you think the > prepositional phrase modifies? But not everyone agrees!) > Unfortunately, c) seems to give the opposite result. As for b), Gary > Blaiss or one of the other high-level ACBL TD's wrote something in a > recent ACBL Bulletin (April?) that appears to endorse David's view, but > it wasn't clear that the article was an official interpretation. > > I fear we are stuck with a)! It's a "guess", but an educated one. Following (d) assumes that everyone knows and agrees on what the rules of English are in great detail---or it assumes that if someone intends to write one thing and gets something a little bit wrong so that it comes out some other way, we're stuck. As far as changing the wording in 2007, I'm holding out hope that the whole blasted claim laws can be rewritten by then, and that the terms "careless, inferior, and irrational" will no longer appear in the law and are replaced by a more objective standard. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 04:17:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:17:08 +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 EAA15278 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-87.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.87]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08842 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:16:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396490F8.4E33AF9B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:00:24 +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: Psyches, another try References: <200007051700.NAA09901@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I now understand the problem. It does not permit the negative - but > it does not make clear which negative. Fair enough - perhaps I was too > convinced in advance what L40A means. > David is marvellous. He does listen to us, and from time to time changes his opinion. We should all sometimes follow his example. Of course I never have to change my opinions. I claim to have understood everything correctly from the beginning. (just joking ...) > > > >If I understand you correctly, the EBU approach says that _if_ there's > >a possible L16A/73F1 violation and _if_ in addition certain conditions > >are met (appearance of fielded psych), the adjusted score should be an > >artificial one (60/30), not an assigned one. Nothing wrong with that > >as far as I can tell, and if you say it works, I believe you. > > It is not any possible L16A/73F1 violation. It is specifically to do > with psyches. The basic argument being that auctions that have not > effectively started [an opening bid which is a psyche and judged to be > an infraction] are not really possible to deal with by assigning. > Now take one step further, David. You are actually assessing a L40D violation. You are calling the fielded "psyche" systemic, and illegal by some other means.(quite probably rightly so). I believe that in cases where the fielded psyche is nothing more than a concealed system that would have been legal, had it been disclosed, you should really only give assigned AS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 04:20:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:20:06 +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 EAA15305 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:19:57 +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 OAA00550 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:19:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706085459.00ae9eb0@pop.cais.com> References: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:54:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:02 AM -0400 7/6/00, Eric Landau wrote: >In the ACBL, it is most common for a player holding xxx/Kxxx/Kxxx/xx to >respond 1H to 1C, and holding xx/Kxxx/Kxxxx/xx to respond 1D to 1C; this >is, of course, not alertable. But there are enough partnerships playing >"up the line" style (they respond 1D on either hand) that it is not >considered "uncommon or unusual", and is also not alertable. The Walsh >style (responding 1H on either hand) is considered "uncommon or unusual", >and does require an alert. This has been changed, although it is still marked in red on convention cards. According to the ACBL alert procedure: >1C-Pass-1H or 1C-Pass-1S: >Not Alertable if it shows 4 or more cards in the suit bid and is forcing for >one round. Note that the fact that you might bypass a longer diamond suit is ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:26:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 67464 invoked for bounce); 6 Jul 2000 18:26:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.96) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 18:26:13 -0000 Message-ID: <00e401bfe777$d7189460$60291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39538E34.A60AFE1@village.uunet.be> <395F4849.D80650C0@village.uunet.be> <007801bfe4bb$468805c0$545408c3@dodona> <39607EF8.AD7E1A2E@village.uunet.be> <004201bfe545$8dc40080$8e5608c3@dodona> <01ff01bfe5fd$9e74bb00$bf291dc2@rabbit> <001301bfe708$7784a6c0$905908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Psyches, another try Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:27:08 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Thomas Dehn > > > > You still confuse 'partner is aware of the violation' > > with 'information shared by the partners'. > > I can well be aware that my partner has psyched > > without even knowing who is on the other > > side of the screen. > > > +=+ Partner may become aware of the violation > from authorised information which is obtained > subsequent to the psyche - usually because > the auction tells him. He may base his actions > on that information. He cannot be aware of > the violation at the time of the psyche; if he is > there is something amiss - it can only come > from something of which he is aware that he > is not entitled to be aware of. Law 75B > applies. There exist psyches about which I am aware at the time of the psyche, not from any partnership experience, but from my vast general knowledge on bridge, or from looking at my hand, or by noticing that the auction simply cannot be true. Example 1: I hold AKQxxx,AKQxxx,x,void at green Partner opens 3NT, showing a solid minor with no outside values. RHO preempts with 5 clubs. You probably would bid 7D. I shrugged off RHO's psyche with a 6C bid (I knew that one ;-) ). [No, I did not have any 'partnership understanding' with RHO.] Example 2: Opponents are two world champions, team league match, we are 15 IMPs ahead at halftime. At green, I hold about x,Kxx,AJxxx,xxxx. Partner passes, RHO opens a strong club, and I overcall a canape 1H, prelalerted before the match and properly alerted by partner (including the possible 13(54) distribution). LHO doubles, showing 5+ balanced or 8+ unbalanced. Partner bids 1S, relay, asking for my 5 card suit, denying 5 or more spades. The auction then unravels as follows: LHO pard RHO me pass 1C* 1H* X* 1S* pass 2D* pass 2S X pass pass 3C pass pass X 3D X all pass. Does it surprise you that I was 100% sure that 2S was a 'baby-psyche'? I did pass 2SX with a singleton because I was sure that partner would run. And I did not feel any obligation to alert 2S. Neither did opponents (who are very familiar with our canape overcalling style, anyway) feel misinformed. They had, in fact, exactly the same information I had. > Information shared by the partners > which leads the partner to suspect a psyche > constitutes a partnership understanding > within the meaning of Law 40A. The laws > offer no dispensations in relation to > situations in the auction (e.g. third in > hand or after RHO's double) with respect > to the disclosure of understandings but it is > open to regulations to permit 'psychic calls' > (as defined) after prior announcement of > a partnership understanding, as in some > circumstances do the WBF General . > Conditions of Contest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There is no partnership understanding just because I have altogether played about 50,000 hands with various partners and own a few hundred books about bridge, and thus have already seen most psyches before, which enables me to analyze some odd bidding situations (including some where an unfamiliar partner has psyched behind screens) in fractions of a second. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 04:52:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA15422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:52:04 +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 EAA15417 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:51:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e66IkTh09790 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:46:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007061846.e66IkTh09790@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:46:29 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200007061812.LAA24191@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Jul 06, 2000 11:12:46 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: (Mucho snippage of solid stuff by DWS, Steve W and Adam) > > It's a "guess", but an educated one. Following (d) assumes that > everyone knows and agrees on what the rules of English are in great > detail---or it assumes that if someone intends to write one thing and > gets something a little bit wrong so that it comes out some other way, > we're stuck. As far as changing the wording in 2007, I'm holding out > hope that the whole blasted claim laws can be rewritten by then, and > that the terms "careless, inferior, and irrational" will no longer > appear in the law and are replaced by a more objective standard. Or better still, in recognition of the fact that there may be no perfectly clear way to phrase this -- or other laws how about we lobby for examples that illustrate the intent of the laws. I've been through these wars in touch football. There are some things that are just plain hard to lay out adequately but are a snap when you put in examples. Of course as Jeff Rubens has pointed out, in many cases the ambiguous wording is intentional. I'm 100% behind the Bridge World's position against this. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 05:12:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:25:05 +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 CAA14885 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:24:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 38125 invoked by uid 0); 6 Jul 2000 16:24:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20000706162418.38124.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:24:18 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:24:18 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Anton Witzen wrote: > >i think i should apply l21a. > >it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. > >so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the > >final pass by declarer) > > Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they >are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer >writing on his a score-card is a pass? Aren't there a number of things you can do outside the prescribed regulations that will be ruled in some manner if your intent was incontrovertible? Tapping your bidding cards, picking them up, writing the contract on the score card, making a lead face down and asking "any questions" all unambiguously show a desire to have passed. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 05:22:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:02:45 +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 DAA15015 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:02:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 35173 invoked by uid 0); 6 Jul 2000 17:01:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000706170151.35172.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:01:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Authorized calls (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:01:51 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 > > You need to add the idea that anything not explicitly permitted by >the > > laws is forbidden. It seems that's the defacto standard for >interpreting > > the laws, though the idea doesn't seem well-defined or -propogated. > > >+=+ Blml readers have had the authorized interpretation >of the law quoted to them often enough not to claim >ignorance of it. The position was reaffirmed August 98 >and is minuted. The game is defined by the laws and >absence of a prohibition does not provide the necessary >authorisation for an action. Since every NBO affiliated >to the WBF has received this information any failure to >make it known is down to the NBO. +=+ Yes, I do understand what the authorized interpretation will be, but it ain't the logical conclusion of the above. Law 40B does not say "a player may do" anything. There is no law that authorizes a partnership to base calls on announced partnership agreement. Or does Law 17 authorize all calls except those prohibited by Law 40/75? Then you run into the problem that Law 40A does not say "a player may not do...." The idea is simply not well-propogated through the laws. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 06:47:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 06:47:36 +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 GAA17347 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 06:47:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.73] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13AHej-000MXY-00; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:49:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfe783$abbebf40$495408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sergey Kapustin" , , "David Burn" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "Richard Grenside" , "William Schoder" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Max Bavin" References: <00bc01bfe754$a10fce60$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: Non Lows question Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 20:51:06 +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 To: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 3:15 PM Subject: Non Lows question > Hi all:) > Can anybody help me with finding the file "WBF Convention Booklet" in the > Internet ? > > I know that it must be contained on the WBF CCE or may be obtained from > http://bridge.ecats.co.uk. [in the Documents section]. > +=+ Go to the Documents Section; to CCE; look at Guide to Completion. You will find that the Guide to Completion incorporates the Conventions Booklet. I have just printed it out - 77 sides of A4 paper. There is a useful index on pages 73 through 76. Page 77 is blank. I am warned that it has not been updated for years, but poor thing though it may be it is what we have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 06:57:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:26:17 +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 CAA14897 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:26:09 +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 MAA18436 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA14514 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 12:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Separate CC's X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I think we are back to the problem of whether extraneous matters are > legal. As far as I can see there is nothing in the GCC to either ban or > permit dual systems. Does that mean they are allowed? As long as the specific conventions are legal, I don't think there is any ACBL regulation against playing up to 16 different systems for each combination of seat and vulnerability, even with the limited convention chart in effect. There used to be a regulation about notrump ranges, but that one was rescinded, and there never was any other limitation that I'm aware of. As to David's question, I think the ACBL approach is to regulate individual conventions, not systems. If you use a certain convention only in certain seats or vulnerabilities, that's OK as long as the convention is a legal one. In practice, it isn't rare to see two-system pairs in GCC events here in the Boston area. Maybe 1 in 100 pairs? I don't claim to have good statistics, but playing against such a pair would not be a huge surprise. Does the EBU allow varying notrump ranges or other minor variations below level 4? Drury? If so, at what point does an accumulation of such variations constitute a new system? And does anyone have insight about why the EBU wishes to impose such restrictions? (And could someone remind me whether it's Level 3 that is used at events equivalent to ones where our GCC is used? What would be used at a County Congress Open Pairs, for example?) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 07:03:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:03:25 +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 DAA15028 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:03:08 +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 13AF37-000NnY-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:55:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > There is a different regulation for that, which bans it much of the >time. > >9.1.8 You and your partner may play two systems at different > positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 > competitions, and only where rounds are of 7 boards or > more. You must each make out two convention cards, > indicating the occasions when the different systems > apply. > This regulation is well understood and respected in the UK. I've discussed this with DWS once or twice and Maxine and I have recently taken to playing 5-card major weak NT (11-13). In third and fourth we play 14-16 NT. This part is fine. We also tactically open a lot of weak flattish 4 card majors in third or fourth, intending to pass partners response. We have one convention card which looks like this: 1C better minor, usually 4 in 3rd/4th if 11-13 1H 5cM, frequently 4 in 3rd and 4th 1N 11-13 1/2 14-16 3/4 Is this a "treatment" in which case it's ok, or is it a system in which case it's not? ... and where is the line drawn? 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 Jul 7 07:29:03 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:32:29 +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 CAA14910 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:32:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d469.iae.nl [212.61.5.215]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E936B20F2F for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:32:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <016901bfe767$8c846d80$d7053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: References: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:15:33 +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 South has limited his hand by bidding 1NT. North has passed. Both are nonforcing. Who did bid 3D? I believe north but you mentioned south. I only know the alerting rules in the Netherlands but alerting 3D is overdone. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Lake" To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 10:43 PM Subject: Help with conflicting alert advice > In yesterday's game, South opened 1NT (15-17), overcalled by East with 2S > (alerted as DONT showing a weakish hand with Spades). South bid 3D and > there were 3 passes to close the auction. > > Later (I don't know if it was before the play of the hand or after), East > asked North if there had been a failure to alert the 3D bid as nonforcing. > North and South indicated that they had no nonstandard agreement and, > therefore, the bid was not alertable. > > A look at Truscott's Dictionary of Bidding shows that the 3D bid is > nonforcing (3 of a major would have been forcing). The ACBL Alert Chart > shows that 3 of a minor over an opening 1NT is alertable if nonforcing, but > (I'm sure?) they mean a direct 3D call, not one over a competitive > intervening bid. > > A call by South to ACBL resulted in the advice that the 3D nonforcing bid > was, indeed, alertable. > > Who's right? > > (I know this is a bore to those outside ACBLland, but I really am interested > in the answer) > > Thanks from a long-time lurker, > > Bob > > Bob Lake > 3206 Covered Bridge Drive > Montgomery, AL 36116 > > Voice: (334) 279-8185 > FAX: (530) 463-9528 > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 07:45:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:45:13 +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 HAA17520 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:45:04 +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 13AJRy-000AKM-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 21:44:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:24:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706075425.00a95bd0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > I am biased by the fact that the footnote says > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for the class of player involved, > but not irrational." > >and it would say > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for any player, but not irrational." > >if that is what it meant. I think that the application of this Law requires movable boundary ropes, but a boundary rope is usually set at 60-70 yards, so that the number of cases where one would rule differently is small. Experts *are* experts because they make fewer mistakes. Nonetheless they do make mistakes and they do make bum claims. The number of bum claims an expert makes is much smaller than that of an average player, so that over a period of time one far more seldom rules against an expert than an average player. "for the class of player involved" is an important moderator. 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 Jul 7 07:59:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:03:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA15030 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:03:08 +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 13AF37-000NnV-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:02:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:35:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:24 PM 7/5/00, David wrote: > >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> > >> >The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty >> >card problems by using L24. >> >If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his >> >discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? >> >> Isn't there some sort of Law requiring three passes at the end of an >>auction? Is the TD allowed to end the auction otherwise? > >When it is common practice in a jurisdiction to make some call in a manner >other than the prescribed one, such as passing by tapping the table or >picking up one's bidding cards, it seems reasonable to assume that that has >implicitly established a "special condition[] for bidding" (L80E) in that >jurisdiction, and to rule that a player who has made such an "implicit" >pass has passed. > But specifically the player who hadn't yet made the final call in the auction had written 4H on his card. He clearly had not passed, but mistakenly thought the auction had been completed. In my mind there is no doubt we are still in the auction period. > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ 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 Jul 7 08:04:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:04:37 +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 IAA17562; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:04:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.212] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 19:04:06 -0300 Date: 06 Jul 2000 19:01:57 -0700 Message-ID: <-1249212394jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? To: , alain gottcheiner , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind 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 IAB17563 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe that in ACBL land all of these responses/sequences would require an alert. regards, jack On Wednesday, July 5, 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello again, > >I'd wish to make a poll about alertability. > >Directors here in belgium disagree which eachother (sometimes with >themselves) on nearly all points. > >Say you're playing Walsh responses to 1C. >Which os the following is/are alertable ? > >1) 1C-1D, denying a major unless strong > >2) 1C-1H/S, which could conceal longer diamonds > >3) 1C-1D-1H/S, which shows genuine clubs (usually 5 cards) > >4) 1C-1D-1NT, which could conceal 4-card major(s) > >I think the obligation to alert 4) is obvious ; what about the >other three ? > > Alain. > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 08:07:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:09 +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 XAA14030 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:41:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.203]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10607 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:41:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39646A6C.5C5ACBB1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:15:56 +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: Alert? References: <3963191D.19B52A83@village.uunet.be> <9uJk$FAi9yY5EwZ8@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: > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> > >> > >> L75C requires a player *not* to give MI to the opponents, even if correctly > >> answering an opponent's enquiry about your system gives UI to partner. > >> > > > >L75D requires a player *not* to give UI to the partner, even > >if incorrectly answering an opponent's enquiry about your > >system gives MI to opponents. > > > >Sorry Richard, the situation is not covered in the Laws. > >You are forced to break one Law or another. > > Richard: this is a specific bee in Herman's bonnet. > > With the exception of Herman, nearly everyone on BLML who has been > posting for some time know the Laws require you not to give MI but there > is no such requirement not to give UI. You will not convince Herman - > no point trying. > Sorry David, I was not showing preference in my reply to Richard. I was just pointing out that it is not so easy as it seems. Merely quoting one Law is not enough, when there is another Law that says exactly the opposite. We have agreed to disagree on what is the best advice to give to players. We agree that we shall give the same ruling, you or I, to any player, regardless of the school he wishes to belong to. (I am not saying we give the same ruling to both players, but that we both give the same ruling to any player). And no, you will not convince me that the actions of a player following the DwS are in any way abhorrant, unethical or unlawful. > Of course L75D does not say you must not give UI, but there it is. > I suppose there is one not too many in that sentence : > Of course L75D says you must not give UI, but there it is. Exactly, you choose to break L75D2, I choose to break L75C. Neither of us can be blamed for deliberate law-breaking, because under the circumstances, we are forced to do so. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 08:16:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:03:25 +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 DAA15029 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:03:08 +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 13AF37-000NnW-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:41:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Comedy of errors References: <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"Great things are done when men > and mountains meet; >This is not done by jostling in the street". > ( William Blake) >~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:56 PM >Subject: Re: Comedy of errors > > >> Seriously, I cannot find any mention of unusual hardship in my Law >> book. I do not know why you are ruling against John on the sequence, >> but I am sure being the TD makes no effective difference. >> >+=+ Are we sure it is not misinformation? >Did they agree 'splinters' for this position >in the auction? My breakfast dish tells >me it is one of those 'agreements' where >the players have differing ideas as to what >they have agreed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ My Cornflakes tell me that too. > At the table I had my doubts. ... but as I *had* mistakenly passed what I *believed* was a splinter, and partner said nothing (he doesn't know the Laws, but is a gentleman) I could only let the hand be played out. When I asked him after the hand he said he knew we were playing splinters but thought this was the best way to describe his hand. It didn't occur to him the call would be interpreted as a splinter although he accepted post facto it was obvious. (!"£$%^&*) 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 Jul 7 08:24:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:24:49 +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 IAA17616 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:24:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13AK4Q-00010A-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:24:34 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000707001827.00f5ec54@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:18:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: <39646CB0.D64C2E45@village.uunet.be> References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:25 PM 7/6/00 +0200, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Anton Witzen wrote: >> >> >i think i should apply l21a. >> >it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >> >so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >> >final pass by declarer) >> >> Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they >> are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer >> writing on his a score-card is a pass? >> > >It is, if he had the intention of passing. >By which I mean, he cannot write down the correct contract >and then change his mind about his final pass. >This is exactly the same as tapping the bidding card or >simply removing them, both of which are considered as >passes. > >But if he writes the contract (say the 3NT of Brian's >example) as undoubled, then no, he has not passed. > well, 21a says that it is his own responsibility looking after the bidding sequence. So if he didnt see the last D he has to pay for it at least, thats my opinion. regards, anton >Which does not solve our original problem. > >No, he has not passed, and there have been cards shown >during the auction. He is now forced to pass, and all the >shown cards become penalty cards. Nowhere in the laws does >it say that these have to be played in exactly the same >order. But of course that is the sane thing to do. > >Perhaps the law about the end of the auction should include >a bit "regardles of whether or not there have been three >passes, the auction has ended when dummy is faced". Then >there is only one penalty card, and a true dummy, and play >can continue normally. >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 08:44:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:44:51 +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 IAA17661 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:44:44 +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 SAA06121 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA15036 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:44:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007062244.SAA15036@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: "Todd Zimnoch" > Does anyone know just how old the footnote is? This is an interesting question. As far as I can tell, the 1997 Laws are the same as the 1987 ones with regard to the footnote and related language. The 1987 Laws made major changes from 1975. Among other things, declarer's and defender's claims and concessions were made more nearly parallel. Our old "End of L68B" thread wouldn't have been possible under the 1975 Laws! Play ceased when a defender claimed but could continue if there was only a concession, no claim, and the other defender immediately objected. In fact, according to the "Director's Guide" that came with the Laws book, the "play ceases" requirement was added only in 1975. L69C3 -- dealing only with _declarer's_ claim -- said "a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (including the careless or inferior but not the irrational)." No "class of player" here! L70A2b, dealing with defender's claim and now no longer in existence, used essentially the same language. L69E (now 70E) said "any conceivable line of play." This is only if declarer made no statement and suggests a rather harsh judgment in that case. If we interpret "any conceivable" as "even for Mrs. Guggenheim," then the L69C3 language means something softer. L71B -- analogous to the current L71C, cancelled concession -- said "any probable play." The 1975 Laws made no reference to class of player, so it isn't clear whether class of player should have been considered or not. The Director's Guide doesn't say explicitly either, but it does say that the director's duty is to "restore the most probable result had the deal been played out." This suggests class of player should have been taken into account in 1975, but I'm not sure one couldn't argue the opposite based only on the language in L69C3. TBW (Kaplan) published a pair of "Appeals Committee" booklets based on the 1975 Laws; maybe those would say something. On balance, though, I think the 1975 Laws suggest that class of player should be considered for claims where declarer makes a statement but not for claims where he does not make one. Whatever you think about 1975, I am not sure it helps us now. One could reasonably argue that the "class of player" language was added either to say that this factor should or should not be considered, depending on what you think the present footnote means. Has anyone seen commentaries on the changes in the 1987 Laws? Kaplan may have written something for tBW, for example. Even unofficial commentaries might shed light on the reasons for the changes. Of course if someone then on the LC would now care to comment, that would be great, too. Incidentally, the Director's Guide addresses A9xx opposite KQTxx! The answer given is that defenders get a trick if and only if Jxxx is behind the KQTxx, the reasoning being that declarer might carelessly play the ace first but was assumed not to miscount. This was judged under the "any conceivable line" language, so it suggests to me that Kaplan considered miscounting irrational but playing the wrong honor merely careless under today's laws. That is consistent with the current ACBL interpretation. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 08:53:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA15014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:02:28 +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 DAA15009 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:02:20 +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 NAA00793 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007061703.NAA00793@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706085459.00ae9eb0@pop.cais.com> References: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706085459.00ae9eb0@pop.cais.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:03:05 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 6 July 2000 at 9:02, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>So, for designing an alerting system that does not make any assumptions >>about "normal bidding", it makes sense to assume that suits are bid up the >>line and alert anything else. > >This seems to assume that alert systems are designed on the premise that >there can be only one non-alertable meaning for a given call. I believe >that it is the perpetration of precisely this fallacy that has caused so >much consternation with regard to the alerting requirements in the ACBL. > >In the ACBL, it is most common for a player holding xxx/Kxxx/Kxxx/xx to >respond 1H to 1C, and holding xx/Kxxx/Kxxxx/xx to respond 1D to 1C; this >is, of course, not alertable. But there are enough partnerships playing >"up the line" style (they respond 1D on either hand) that it is not >considered "uncommon or unusual", and is also not alertable. The Walsh >style (responding 1H on either hand) is considered "uncommon or unusual", >and does require an alert. > Um, no, Eric. What were you saying about "consternation"? I do believe this is one of the changes that went in after the "tryout" of the Alert Procedure, though. >From the ACBL Alert Procedure http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm : [last paragraph and example list in Part I: NATURAL CALLS]
In general, when the use of conventions lead to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable. Three such agreements have become expected and fairly common; therefore, no Alert is required. EXAMPLES: [snip 1H-1S playing Flannery, so promising 5 spades] [snip 1H-1NT could or could not have 4 spades] 1C-Pass-1H or 1S If the major suit bidder could be passing up a four-card or longer diamond suit, no Alert is required [though a NT response that frequently hides a 4-card major is Alertable]. >IMHO this is one that the ACBL got right. Actually, so do I. On the other hand, the "negative inference" bit is why our partnership Alerts 1C-1D-1NT ("does not deny a 4-card major"), and 1C-1D-1S ("Tends to show an unbalanced hand" - implying real (4+, not 5+ necessarily) clubs) - just to answer the original question for the ACBL :-). I think the ACBL got this one right, too. Those people in jurisdictions where Flannery isn't the fifth-most-played convention (after Stayman, Transfers, Gerber and Blackwood) might disagree about the exceptions, however. Michael. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 08:57:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:57:37 +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 IAA17695 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:57:28 +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 SAA06399 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA15065 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:57:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:57:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007062257.SAA15065@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > in jurisdictions where Flannery isn't the fifth-most-played convention > (after Stayman, Transfers, Gerber and Blackwood)... Takeout doubles aren't popular where you play? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 09:40:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:40:05 +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 JAA17799 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:39:54 +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 13ALF9-000GvD-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:39:44 +0000 Message-ID: <6zI7YYBldRZ5Ewg9@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:33:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> I think we are back to the problem of whether extraneous matters are >> legal. As far as I can see there is nothing in the GCC to either ban or >> permit dual systems. Does that mean they are allowed? > >As long as the specific conventions are legal, I don't think there is >any ACBL regulation against playing up to 16 different systems for each >combination of seat and vulnerability, even with the limited convention >chart in effect. There used to be a regulation about notrump ranges, >but that one was rescinded, and there never was any other limitation >that I'm aware of. > >As to David's question, I think the ACBL approach is to regulate >individual conventions, not systems. If you use a certain convention >only in certain seats or vulnerabilities, that's OK as long as the >convention is a legal one. > >In practice, it isn't rare to see two-system pairs in GCC events here >in the Boston area. Maybe 1 in 100 pairs? I don't claim to have good >statistics, but playing against such a pair would not be a huge >surprise. > >Does the EBU allow varying notrump ranges or other minor variations >below level 4? Drury? If so, at what point does an accumulation of >such variations constitute a new system? And does anyone have insight >about why the EBU wishes to impose such restrictions? > >(And could someone remind me whether it's Level 3 that is used at >events equivalent to ones where our GCC is used? What would be used at >a County Congress Open Pairs, for example?) Level 3 even in the Final, but the head-to-head teams championship would be level 4. Generally level 3 is used unless there are 8 or more boards played at the same table. This includes multi and in practise doesn't exclude very much (I make one minor change between level 3 and 4 for example) Generally level 4 is used in head-to-head matches of 8 boards or more where the event is of "regional" (to use an Americanism) level. Thus the first division of a league plays level 4, the intermediate divisions level 3 and the bottom division level 2. The Young Chelsea plays level 4 on Mondays & Wednesdays, level 5 on Fridays (subject to certain restrictions) and level 1 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Acol allows level 4 on Tuesdays and Thursdays and in practice is a level 2 club otherwise. So the Bridge clubs as SO's have a great deal of autonomy here. 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 Jul 7 10:08:51 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14044 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:42:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-203.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.203]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10645 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:41:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:59:43 +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: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am so glad, Todd, that you started this thread. Means I don't have to. Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How > does the Herman 1H fall under it? > Let's summarise what we have established (well, I consider it thus, I have stated these things and they have gone largely unchallenged) 1) There are four classes of bids : systemics, mistakes, deviations and psyches. 2) Psyches are permitted. 3) There can be knowledge about psyches. According to L75C (partnership experience) this knowledge has to be disclosed. Now we have to decide whether or not the Herman-1-Heart is a psyche or a systemic (I hope we agree it is not a deviation or a mistake). First of all let me repeat what the "knowledge" is that surrounds the Herman-1-Heart : "From time to time, Herman has opened, third in hand, 1 Heart on a hand worth 0-4 points and with short hearts (0-3). He has told me that it is no good practice to open on 4 points or with 3 hearts, so if he does not have 11+ and 5 hearts, he could have 0-3 points and 0-2 hearts". This knowledge is available to ME, because I have derived it. This knowledge may be available to my partner, if he chooses to remember such things. I do not believe it matters whether or not my actual partner of the day has the knowledge or not. This knowledge would be available to my opponents, since I would write it on my CC, if only the PTB in Belgium had allowed me that. This knowledge is quite detailed. Over the course of the discussion, only one other example of such a detailed psyching tendency has come to light. I am talking about the Probst-1NT, an overcall over 1D or 1Cl with long hearts. However, I refuse to believe that there are only 2 people in the world who have regular psyching habits. Considering that these two are knowledgeable TD's and actively ethical players, we can only conclude that most of those others simply keep quiet about their psyching tendencies. Which brings me to my first remark : It would not be good for the game of bridge to disallow the Herman-1-Heart and the Probst-1NT simply because the perpetrators admit to having a habit. That would only encourage the others to remain in their respective closets. I am not saying here that therefor they must be allowed, but only that they should not be banned merely for the honesty of disclosure. There is a second reason for the same remark. Earlier this year, I ruled an "obvious" psyche systemic. The auction had started with two pairs playing complicated system and defence, and the hand in question was of a type you would not expect after that start of auction (I don't remember it all, so trust me). Although the player did an obviously antisystemic bid, it was, given the situation, no doubt (IMO) the best bid available. I found that there was no risk attached to the psyche. I was certain that this psyche had not happened before, and that the players had not discussed the situation. Nevertheless I ruled that the bid was systemic. The AC later overturned my decision, not because they disagreed with my interpretation, but because they found that my analysis of the bid being risk-free was in error. I want to continue to make such rulings. Which means that in order for some call to be ruled systemic, it should not matter whether or not the call has come up before. Perhaps the situation has never arisen. OK, let's now return to the question. What exactly is it that makes the Herman-1-Heart systemic. It cannot be the knowledge, it cannot be the previous occurence. it must be something else, if anything. Some people have written arguments stating that the Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : 1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- cards. I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an agreement ? They compare the opening to, for instance : 2Cl : 4-10, 6 cards diamonds OR 20-21 bal OR 26-27 bal OR 8 playing tricks in Majors (6c or 5-5) or 9 tricks in minors. There is however one obvious major difference between the two : In the first, there is no stopping partner from bidding 4Hearts. In the second, which is the system I regularly play, there is an answering scheme that goes : -2Di : all else - opener will pass with weak diamonds -2He/2Sp : 0-3, 5 card - opener will pass with weak diamonds or 20-21 bal -2NT : 14+,asking - opener will bid 3Di with weak diamonds, 3Cl with 20-21, 7NT with 26-27 (really ! my partner has indeed written that one in our system notes) As you can see, in all cases there is a specific reply that shows the weak option. That is not the case with the Herman-1-Heart. Which is one reason why I refuse to play Drury. I could live with a regulation that says that the Herman-1-Heart is only allowed when there is no Drury in the system. I am going to stop now. I believe I have given the right (and only) direction in which to search for a criteria by which to determine whether a "habitual psyche" is a psyche or a systemic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 10:10:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17885 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ALij-0003X5-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:10:18 +0100 Message-ID: <00e101bfe7a8$0d0f6d20$235408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200007061846.e66IkTh09790@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:48:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > > Or better still, in recognition of the fact that there may > be no perfectly clear way to phrase this -- or other laws > how about we lobby for examples that illustrate the intent > of the laws. +=+ Well now, Ron, give me some examples. I'm looking hard for some useful examples from over your way, for the WBF 'Jurisprudence'. The policy of the CoP Group ('Lausanne Group') is to flesh out the Code of Practice with a corpus of appeals records to illustrate where we are trying to go. Up to now the gathered material is 95% European, through no fault of mine. +=+ > > Of course as Jeff Rubens has pointed out, in many cases the ambiguous > wording is intentional. I'm 100% behind the Bridge World's position > against this. > +=+ I would prefer to say 'was' intentional! That policy was 95% the policy of one man who would not heed argument on the question. Now I do believe the intention is to change the policy, although as you say it may be easier to say than to do. So 'jurisprudence' is a yes. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 10:10:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:10:40 +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 KAA17878 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ALim-0003X5-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:10:20 +0100 Message-ID: <00e201bfe7a8$0e239c40$235408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200007061444.HAA20180@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:22:30 +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: Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Well, the complete opposite anyway. > > > > If the footnote meant to treat people equally, why on earth does it > > say the opposite? > > Good point. I haven't been paying much attention to this punctuation > issue, but now that I think about it, it does seem odd that the person > who wrote this footnote, if he wanted the same law to apply equally to > everyone regardless of ability, would bother to include the phrase > "for the class of player involved", which would be irrelevant to their > intention, be potentially confusing, and serve no purpose. > > -- Adam +=+ I have not really been following this thread. But dipped in and, lo and behold, we are discussing the footnote again. So I stepped back and had a fresh think. First of all, compare the 1975 statement in the footnote: "Normal includes the inferior or careless, but not the irrational." Now that treats everybody alike. In 1987 along we came and introduced the class of player. So clearly we had no intention of treating everybody alike. It just may be that I have a piece of paper somewhere that would tell us something. What is not so clear is whether 'irrational' appertains to the class of player as, clearly, 'inferior' and 'careless' do. Or does it remain an absolute, referable to what is sane for persons in general, as it seemed to a preconditioned mind. Here I notice another change. In 1975 the footnote said 'but not the irrational', now the determiner ('the') has been removed - whereas in the 1975 version 'the irrational' was a stand- alone, self sufficient concept, now 'irrational' hangs more on what goes before. Wearing this pair of spectacles I would say it is less than certain how it is to be read. The statement has been damaged by the introduction of the desired link to class of player without moving the words around to achieve clarity. Oh, well, an extra line on the agenda in Maastricht will do no great harm. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 10:11:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:11:31 +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 KAA17893 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:11:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ALio-0003X5-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:10:23 +0100 Message-ID: <00e301bfe7a8$0fd80300$235408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sergey Kapustin" , , "David Burn" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , "Richard Grenside" , "William Schoder" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Max Bavin" References: <00bc01bfe754$a10fce60$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> <000d01bfe783$abbebf40$495408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Non Lows question Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:11:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Great things are done when men > and mountains meet; > This is not done by jostling in the street". > ( William Blake) > ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sergey Kapustin > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 3:15 PM > Subject: Non Lows question > > > > Hi all:) > > Can anybody help me with finding the file "WBF Convention Booklet" in the > > Internet ? > > > > I know that it must be contained on the WBF CCE or may be obtained from > > http://bridge.ecats.co.uk. [in the Documents section]. > > > +=+ Go to the Documents Section; to CCE; look at Guide > to Completion. You will find that the Guide to Completion > incorporates the Conventions Booklet. I have just printed > it out - 77 sides of A4 paper. There is a useful* index on > pages 73 through 76. Page 77 is blank. I am warned > that it has not been updated for years, but poor thing > though it may be it is what we have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > { Correction: *not so useful. The first thing I tried did not work. For 'Multi' see pages 11 & 59. ~ G ~ } From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 11:10:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:34:42 +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 WAA13738 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:34:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-120.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-120.interpacket.net [216.252.211.120]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ca129820 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:47:01 +1000 Message-ID: <000201bfe745$78e386c0$78d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <000801bfe5e2$e34ff160$db307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 00:03:32 +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 Ok, it is a logical alternative for a Club player - which I am - but which I would never do! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Sent: 5 July 2000 4:08 Subject: Re: UK UI > 2S P(h) 3S, Green > x > Q9xx > AQ109 > Axxx > > > Do you allow a double? > > > > > > The majority view was that Pass was not a logical alternative for an > international player. > > Wow! > > IMHO that is a very big position to take. > OK Pass is not a good call but is it so bad that it cannot be considered a > logical alternative? > > Regards, > Fearghal. > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 11:31:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:06:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18241 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:05:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13AMa7-000KZW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:05:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:43:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:24 PM 7/5/00, David wrote: > >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> > >> >The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty >> >card problems by using L24. >> >If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his >> >discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? >> >> Isn't there some sort of Law requiring three passes at the end of an >>auction? Is the TD allowed to end the auction otherwise? > >When it is common practice in a jurisdiction to make some call in a manner >other than the prescribed one, such as passing by tapping the table or >picking up one's bidding cards, it seems reasonable to assume that that has >implicitly established a "special condition[] for bidding" (L80E) in that >jurisdiction, and to rule that a player who has made such an "implicit" >pass has passed. Well, I do not think he has the right to establish a special condition in such a way. Why should any player be bound by the antics of opponents who do not bother with the regs? -- 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 Jul 7 11:49:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:49:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18397 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:49:02 +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 13ANG5-000E2M-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:48:50 +0100 Message-ID: <3BVYEzBSaTZ5EwiV@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:46:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip >> >> What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How >> does the Herman 1H fall under it? >> big snip > >Some people have written arguments stating that the >Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : > >1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- >cards. I don't agree that this is what the convention card would say because that is an agreement and would be unlicensed. It would have to say something like: 3rd seat: 5+cards, 11+ or occasionally psyched when holding 0-2hcp and 2 cards. Frequency c. 1% of all 3rd seat 1H openers (or whatever it might be) The psychic aspect occurs because it is only wielded out some of the time. I would immediately adjust if it occurred on every occasion as it is use of an unlicensed convention (even if partner never fields it), The "Probst 1NT" is about 5-10% of the times I hold a long weak H suit and occurs about 2-3% of all 1NT overcalls for example. > >I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an >agreement ? > snip > >I am going to stop now. I believe I have given the right >(and only) direction in which to search for a criteria by >which to determine whether a "habitual psyche" is a psyche >or a systemic. > lets add that it becomes systemic if it always happens. 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 Jul 7 11:55:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:55:11 +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 LAA18433 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:55:03 +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 13ANLu-000E9G-0W for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:54:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:53:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >>>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>> > >>> >The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty >>> >card problems by using L24. >>> >If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his >>> >discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? >>> snip > DWS: > Well, I do not think he has the right to establish a special condition >in such a way. Why should any player be bound by the antics of >opponents who do not bother with the regs? > Agreed. I'm confident that we can enforce the pass (penalty cards in the auction). I'm confident we can allow the original opening lead. I am still considering the question of the disposition of the remaining 9 penalty cards. I don't like my current train of thought in this respect at all. 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 Jul 7 12:31:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:29:25 +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 IAA17631 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:29:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13AK8o-0001Ss-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:29:06 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000707002259.00693fb0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:22:59 +0200 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <00dc01bfe6a1$5afb3940$dd307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:35 PM 7/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >In article <4.3.2.7.1.20000706082639.00a94d60@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes >>At 09:24 PM 7/5/00, David wrote: >> >>>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >>> > >>> >The four players think they are in the play period so why create penalty >>> >card problems by using L24. >>> >If the TD can establish that South did double then why can't the TD use his >>> >discretionary powers and play the board in 4HX-6? >>> >>> Isn't there some sort of Law requiring three passes at the end of an >>>auction? Is the TD allowed to end the auction otherwise? >> >>When it is common practice in a jurisdiction to make some call in a manner >>other than the prescribed one, such as passing by tapping the table or >>picking up one's bidding cards, it seems reasonable to assume that that has >>implicitly established a "special condition[] for bidding" (L80E) in that >>jurisdiction, and to rule that a player who has made such an "implicit" >>pass has passed. >> >But specifically the player who hadn't yet made the final call in the >auction had written 4H on his card. He clearly had not passed, but >mistakenly thought the auction had been completed. > >In my mind there is no doubt we are still in the auction period. >> may i then ask what your interpretation of 21 is perhaps????? regards anton >>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >>APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >>1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 >> > >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ 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 Fri Jul 7 12:35:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:34:41 +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 WAA13737 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:34:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-120.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-120.interpacket.net [216.252.211.120]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id da129821 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:47:03 +1000 Message-ID: <000301bfe745$79a55020$78d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 00:12:27 +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 Nothing - I presume he is going to claim inadvertency for his pass! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: 5 July 2000 12:54 Subject: Did anybody double? > > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East > reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North > said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer > showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He > said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx > in his score-card. > > So what do we do? > > -- > 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 Jul 7 13:00:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18559 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:26 +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 13AON4-000MNj-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:00:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:57:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200007061639.MAA14531@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007061639.MAA14531@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 am biased by the fact that the footnote says >> >> "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, >> ``normal'' includes play that would be careless >> or inferior for the class of player involved, >> but not irrational." >> >> and it would say >> >> "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, >> ``normal'' includes play that would be careless >> or inferior for any player, but not irrational." >> >> if that is what it meant. > >Or the words 'for the class of player involved' could have been >omitted altogether. I think you will find, Steve, that my suggested alternative, *does* omit 'for the class of player involved' altogether. >The problem with this line of argument is that we can equally say, if >the footnote meant what David thinks, it could have been written as: > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' > includes play that would be careless or inferior but not > irrational for the class of player involved." True. But since this seems to me to mean the same thing, I have no problem with it. >Perhaps one of these forms will be adopted in 2007, but until then >(or until there is an official interpretation), we can a) guess, >b) follow SO or NCBO guidance, if any, c) follow tradition, or >d) try to parse phrasing and punctuation. > >As regular readers know, I usually argue on the basis of d), and the >result of that seems clear to me. (Which adjectives do you think the >prepositional phrase modifies? But not everyone agrees!) I argue on the basis of d), and it seems clear to me also. >Unfortunately, c) seems to give the opposite result. As for b), Gary >Blaiss or one of the other high-level ACBL TD's wrote something in a >recent ACBL Bulletin (April?) that appears to endorse David's view, but >it wasn't clear that the article was an official interpretation. > >I fear we are stuck with a)! Well, maybe. -- 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 Jul 7 13:00:36 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:36 +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 NAA18562 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:27 +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 13AON5-000J4R-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:00:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:23:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Does the EBU allow varying notrump ranges or other minor variations >below level 4? Drury? If so, at what point does an accumulation of >such variations constitute a new system? And does anyone have insight >about why the EBU wishes to impose such restrictions? It is a judgement matter when such variations become a new system, I suppose. Different no-trump ranges do not make a new system - it says so in the Glossary. Drury [the 347th most commonly played convention in England] is irrelevant. In general, differences in approach because of being 3rd/4th hand are taken as a matter of course. I wonder whether John Probst has not gone over the line. 5-card majors and Acol [=4-card majors] are two Basic Systems, and I think 5-card majors 1st/2nd and Acol 3rd/4th sounds like two systems to me. >(And could someone remind me whether it's Level 3 that is used at >events equivalent to ones where our GCC is used? What would be used at >a County Congress Open Pairs, for example?) The difference is that we have a lot of Level 4 events available. Yes, Level 3 and GCC are equivalent, but for comparison you should consider the ACBL where there are always some MidChart events available everywhere. -- 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 Jul 7 13:00:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18561 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:27 +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 13AON5-000J4Q-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:00:09 +0000 Message-ID: <9alrzbA1vTZ5EwDC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:09:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <20000706162418.38124.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000706162418.38124.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 >>Anton Witzen wrote: >> >i think i should apply l21a. >> >it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >> >so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >> >final pass by declarer) >> >> Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they >>are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer >>writing on his a score-card is a pass? > > Aren't there a number of things you can do outside the prescribed >regulations that will be ruled in some manner if your intent was >incontrovertible? Tapping your bidding cards, picking them up, writing the >contract on the score card, making a lead face down and asking "any >questions" all unambiguously show a desire to have passed. No, Todd. Tapping your bidding cards probably show a pass, but the remainder do not show a pass from a player who does not believe he has a call. I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any other way but showing a pass card? He has not passed here by the regulations: why should we assume he has passed? -- 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 Jul 7 13:04:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:06:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18243 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:05:47 +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 13AMa7-000KZX-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:05:29 +0100 Message-ID: <1nA2tLBBmLZ5Ewg2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:53:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Separate References: <1.5.4.32.20000706130436.006bdc58@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000706130436.006bdc58@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henry Sun wrote: >At 02:21 PM 7/5/00 PDT, you wrote: >> The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the same >>card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other seat. I >>don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a >>strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong >>no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat >>playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and >>not the other. >> >>-Todd > >in the acbl, it was rationalized as follows. say that some schmuck, like me, >is playing with some pro. we could then play a card in which all my bids >were transfers and all the pro's bids were natural, thus allowing the pro >to declare most, or all, of our hands. or we could play a system where >all my bids were natural and all his were relays. or..... > >this would, clearly, disadvantage the rest of the field to say nothing of >how it would make a mockery of the partnership aspect of the game. All right, I cannot stay out of this any longer. In my view, if this is the argument for not permitting different systems then I think we should allow them. This would clearly disadvantage the rest of the field in the same way as so many other things do, like whether when 7NT can be made on a double squeeze you are playing against Mrs Guggenheim or Meckstroth. There is nothing in it that says it should be illegal. I am worried about people trying to protect the field against people playing bridge in a different way from themselves. I understand the reason for limiting conventions, but otherwise, what harm does it do? As for a mockery of the partnership aspect, I do not see it. Two players are playing to their strengths in the way that seems to make the best of their partnership. What is wrong with that? -- 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 Jul 7 13:59:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:01:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18164 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:01:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.74] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13AMVt-0004Y5-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:01:06 +0100 Message-ID: <014701bfe7af$25aab220$235408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200007062244.SAA15036@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:02:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 11:44 PM Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > Does anyone know just how old the footnote is? > ---------------- \x/ ----------------- > Has anyone seen commentaries on the changes in the 1987 Laws? +=+ Oh, yes. Somewhere in my ancient box files I have got several tons of paper that went to and fro between EK and myself. I'm trying to sort out two agendas for Maastricht just now, LC and Lausanne G. So with that and people wandering into my office with correspondence about desperate pleas for grants I'm somewhat pressed. But I will have a little dig. Not this weekend though, I'm off to Dublin for an encounter with the Irish - Dublin v. Merseyside. (The bridge will be watered but not the hospitality.) +=+ Kaplan > may have written something for tBW, for example. Even unofficial > commentaries might shed light on the reasons for the changes. Of > course if someone then on the LC would now care to comment, that would > be great, too. > +=+ I have just let a note go - you should perhaps have it by now. There was definitely a move to introduce varying standards where the law book had not called for them previously; we had our eyes on that ball and did not think deeply enough about the order of the words and the punctuation. (I think varying standards had been introducing themselves for a while, via AC decisions.) In the EBL at the time we did take the view that " 'normal' refers to any play which is not 'irrational' for the class of player making the play". But I do not recall that we ever did test the opinion with EK and, in philosphical vein, I am not all that sure that what is irrational for Einstein is not also irrational for Pugwash. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 14:39:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:21:30 +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 JAA17737 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13AKxH-0006XJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 01:21:15 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000707011507.00f62dfc@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:15:07 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Comedy of errors In-Reply-To: References: <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona> <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA17738 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:41 PM 7/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >In article <000601bfe715$f7748000$435608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes >> >>Grattan Endicott>================================= >>"Great things are done when men >> and mountains meet; >>This is not done by jostling in the street". >> ( William Blake) >>~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >>To: >>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:56 PM >>Subject: Re: Comedy of errors >> >> >>> Seriously, I cannot find any mention of unusual hardship in my Law >>> book. I do not know why you are ruling against John on the sequence, >>> but I am sure being the TD makes no effective difference. >>> >>+=+ Are we sure it is not misinformation? >>Did they agree 'splinters' for this position >>in the auction? My breakfast dish tells >>me it is one of those 'agreements' where >>the players have differing ideas as to what >>they have agreed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > but, whats the problem. When i was young i had frequently occurrences of passing a splinter. I even remember i ended in a 2-1 fit in clubs (my pd passed 4c - a splinter - and i ended 2 off, while i could go 1 off; the rest ended in 6s -1; i never even told my partner that is was very awkward to pass a splinter. i just played the hand out) just take your medicine and dont complain. thats the real bridge spirit. and by the way i neither eat breakfast neither lunch (i even only get dinners on alternate days) >My Cornflakes tell me that too. > >> >At the table I had my doubts. ... but as I *had* mistakenly passed what >I *believed* was a splinter, and partner said nothing (he doesn't know >the Laws, but is a gentleman) I could only let the hand be played out. > >When I asked him after the hand he said he knew we were playing >splinters but thought this was the best way to describe his hand. It >didn't occur to him the call would be interpreted as a splinter although >he accepted post facto it was obvious. > >(!"£$%^&*) 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 Fri Jul 7 15:04:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:06:08 +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 LAA18242 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:05:47 +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 13AMa7-000KZV-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 02:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:41:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.2.32.20000706164335.00f5cc30@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000706164335.00f5cc30@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 02:22 AM 7/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >>Anton Witzen wrote: >> >>>i think i should apply l21a. >>>it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. >>>so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the >>>final pass by declarer) >> >> Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they >>are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer >>writing on his a score-card is a pass? >> >Our PK (the highest protest authoroty in holland) has established that >taking away the bidding card, tapping on them or in any other way >indicating a pass, without actually taking the card out of the biddingbox >IS in fact treated as a pass. Note that I do not think tapping a pass or indicating it in any way is comparable with taking the cards away which is no indication of anything except that you think the auction has finished. > So who am i to act against them??? >Anyway, at least in holland - at all levels - it is considered to bo nromal >indicating a pass by above mentioned methods. I doubt that when one realy >insists on putting a pass card by last plaer on the table you cat more than >a - come on dont be a lawyer - >regards, >anton >PS I now only speak for the way we in holland deal with this matter of course. I understand the advice, but are you sure the Dutch were thinking of this particular occurrence? When a player has a call to make and he takes his bidding cards away it is reasonable to assume he has passed, and your authority has agreed with that. But can they say that a pass is indicated when someone who does *not* have a call to make takes the cards away? So, in the current case, someone who did not [by his own opinion] have a call to make takes his cards away: you are ruling that a pass, not because he passed or meant to or did by the regulations, but because people do not bother with the regulations. That is one enormous position to take. Aha, you say, but perhaps he deserves that, because of all the times he is normally casual. Fine, but is *this* player? When I played in Schipol, I noticed several people take their cards away instead of a final pass. I *never* did: I think it rude and unnecessary. Now, I am not asking you to debate the rudeness, but would you have ruled that *I* passed when I took the cards away even though I *never* do? I think the ruling on the actual hand depends in part on whether this player takes the cards away instead of passing. If he does, then he got what he deserved. But if he doesn't? -- 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 Jul 7 15:22:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:01:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18560 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:00:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13AON5-000MNk-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:00:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 03:12:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: alerting Walsh ? References: <001701bfe72a$94737320$cc54fd3e@vnmvhhid> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706085459.00ae9eb0@pop.cais.com> <200007061703.NAA00793@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200007061703.NAA00793@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 July 2000 at 9:02, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>So, for designing an alerting system that does not make any assumptions >>>about "normal bidding", it makes sense to assume that suits are bid up the >>>line and alert anything else. >> >>This seems to assume that alert systems are designed on the premise that >>there can be only one non-alertable meaning for a given call. I believe >>that it is the perpetration of precisely this fallacy that has caused so >>much consternation with regard to the alerting requirements in the ACBL. >> >>In the ACBL, it is most common for a player holding xxx/Kxxx/Kxxx/xx to >>respond 1H to 1C, and holding xx/Kxxx/Kxxxx/xx to respond 1D to 1C; this >>is, of course, not alertable. But there are enough partnerships playing >>"up the line" style (they respond 1D on either hand) that it is not >>considered "uncommon or unusual", and is also not alertable. The Walsh >>style (responding 1H on either hand) is considered "uncommon or unusual", >>and does require an alert. >> >Um, no, Eric. What were you saying about "consternation"? I do believe >this is one of the changes that went in after the "tryout" of the Alert >Procedure, though. > >From the ACBL Alert Procedure >http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm : > >[last paragraph and example list in Part I: NATURAL CALLS] > >
>In general, when the use of conventions lead to unexpected >understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural >call becomes Alertable. Three such agreements have become expected >and fairly common; therefore, no Alert is required. > >EXAMPLES: > >[snip 1H-1S playing Flannery, so promising 5 spades] >[snip 1H-1NT could or could not have 4 spades] > >1C-Pass-1H or 1S > >If the major suit bidder could be passing up a four-card or longer >diamond suit, no Alert is required [though a NT response that >frequently hides a 4-card major is Alertable]. > >>IMHO this is one that the ACBL got right. > >Actually, so do I. On the other hand, the "negative inference" bit is >why our partnership Alerts 1C-1D-1NT ("does not deny a 4-card major"), >and 1C-1D-1S ("Tends to show an unbalanced hand" - implying real (4+, >not 5+ necessarily) clubs) - just to answer the original question for >the ACBL :-). I think the ACBL got this one right, too. Those people >in jurisdictions where Flannery isn't the fifth-most-played convention >(after Stayman, Transfers, Gerber and Blackwood) might disagree about >the exceptions, however. At Level 3, Flannery will be permitted from 1st September. One person made an enquiry. No, I don't think it is the fifth-most-played convention over here. -- 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 Jul 7 15:40:08 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:30:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18000 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:30:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta111195 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:30:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-219.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.219]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Well-Rounded-MailRouter V2.9 3/842277); 07 Jul 2000 10:30:48 Message-ID: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:27:33 +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 Grabiner wrote: >No, but I would say that a player picking up his bidding cards >after two passes is a pass, because this is common practice. >Many players don't bother to put the third pass down at the end >of the auction, and it would be unreasonable to rule that the >auction is not over in such situations. > >In the actual situation, if you don't rule that the auction was >over when declarer picked up his bidding cards, then you >must rule that declarer misused his bidding cards by picking >them up in a live auction, and that this misled opening leader. >Since declarer was primarily at fault for dummy being prematurely >exposed, he must pay the penalty of an enforced pass. Once he >has paid this penalty, the premature opening lead must be led >at the proper time, dummy comes down normally, and declarer >plays in the doubled contract. I don't like the idea of replaying a hand that's just been played (see DWS' post at end of my post; 4H went down six). Do you realise that declarer picked up his bidding cards because he thought that there had already been three passes, thinking that the auction was over before it reached him? Declarer never made any attempt to pass. Had he realised that it was his turn to call, he obviously would not have passed 4H in his void suit. As DWS indicated (below), the play of 4H/4HX has been completed, and a ruling must be made. The contract went down six, so the possible rulings seem to be: (1) 4H -6 or (2) 4HX -6 or (3) an adjusted score, under L82B1 and/or L12A2. Since three of the players at the table incorrectly assumed that declarer passed when he made no attempt to do so, I think that it is reasonable to rule under L82B1 that an error in procedure has occurred and that an adjusted score should be awarded. What adjusted score? Declarer has erred by not seeing his LHO's call (I wonder if declarer is colour-blind?), and the other three players have erred by assuming that a common but unlawful practice of passing by "picking up one's bidding cards" has occurred. Thus both sides are at fault. Awarding an artificial score under L12C1 is right if "owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained". An irregularity is defined in the FLB as "a deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws". Thus an irregularity has occurred, the play should be voided and cannot be replayed. Thus "no result can be obtained". If it's matchpoints it seems that 50% to all is correct ("contestant only partly at fault" in L12C1) but perhaps 40% to all is possible (if every "contestant directly at fault"). This may seem harsh to the pair that appears to have just obtained a top, but if I were in either of their seats, I would have asked "declarer" to call, and he would not then have passed. I think (only think, mind you) that that would be the correct procedure. I assumed in my ruling that the SO has not used L18F to authorise "picking up the bidding cards" as a Pass. I also assumed that Bidding Boxes are in use. By the way, declarer's self-serving comment that "he had not seen the double" is, unlike many self-serving comments, clearly true based on the content of declarer's hand. As usual recently , my analysis is different from everyone else's. Peter Gill Australia. David Stevenson had written: >> >> W N E S >> 1D P 1S P >> 2C P 4H! X >> P P >> >> 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, >>and East reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led >>face down, North said "No questions". At about T5 a defender >>led a trump - and declarer showed out! >>4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was >>horrified! He said that he had not seen the double! Of course, >>he entered 4H not 4Hx in his score-card. >>So what do we do? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 16:39:49 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (zmamail03.zma.compaq.com [161.114.64.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13675 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:20:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix, from userid 12345) id EDF0E4264; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from excreo-gh02.reo.cpqcorp.net (excreo-gh02.reo.cpqcorp.net [16.37.150.254]) by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5FC4193; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by excreo-gh02.reo.cpqcorp.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:19:59 +0100 Message-ID: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC2444A24@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> From: "Timmermans, Catelijne" To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Statistics Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 13:18:20 +0100 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 Hi, I am one of the 'com'mers, I live in Ireland but am Dutch (and no dogs and cats). I am not a director, just an average player interested in this stuff (I want to take the directors course after I move back to the Netherlands). Regards, Catelijne / Lynn > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: 06 July 2000 11:27 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Statistics > > > There are currently 254 addresses affiliated to blml. > > 124 of those have joined for the first time in 1997 or > before > 53 have joined in 1998 > 41 in 1999 > and 36 in the first half of this year. > > 9 people want to receive everything twice. > > The 245 others are distributed by zone as follows : > > zone 1 (Europe) 102 > GB 31 > NL 13 > DE 8 > DK 7 > BE FR 6 > IL 5 > RU 4 > PL 3 > CH IT PT 2 > AT CZ EE ES FI GL GR HU IE IS NO SE UA 1 > zone 2 (N.America) 74 > US 63 > CA 10 > BM 1 > zone 3 (S.America) 1 > CL 1 > zone 4 (SW. Asia) 0 (all our members in zone 4 are now in > zone 8) > zone 5 (M.America) 1 > GY 1 > zone 6 (E. Asia) 5 > JP 2 > ID SG TW 1 > zone 7 (Oceania) 25 > AU 14 > NZ 11 > zone 8 (Africa) 2 > EG ZA 1 > unknown 35 > .com 24 > .net 10 > .edu 1 > > These people are always invited to make themselves known. > > There have been 4224 messages to blml in the first half of > this year, which is an average of 22.6 messages per day (27 > in 1999) > > The top poster will not surprise anyone : > > post (rk) (rk99) > 522 (1) (1) David Stevenson > 354 (2) (4) Grattan Endicott > 253 (3) (2) Herman De Wael > 217 (4) (6) John (MadDog) Probst > 204 (5) (11) Adam Beneschan > 191 (6) (5) Steve Willner > 158 (7) (14) David Burn > 121 (8) (12) Anne Jones > 108 (9) (7) Eric Landau > 101 (10) Todd Zimnoch > 96 (11) (17) David Grabiner > 92 (12) (13) Schoder "Kojak" > 76 (13) (16) Craig Senior > 75 (14) (8) Michael S. Dennis > 71 (15) (25) Martin Sinot > 68 (16) (22) Kooijman, A > 65 (17) (10) Jesper Dybdal > 65 (17) (18) Dany Haimovici > 63 (19) (9) Roger Pewick > 57 (20) (3) Marvin L. French > 48 (21) (20) Ed Reppert > 46 (22) (61) Thomas Dehn > 46 (22) (19) Tim West-Meads > 44 (24) (28) Michael Farebrother > 42 (25) (45) Konrad Ciborowski > 42 (25) (21) Hirsch Davis > 38 (27) (37) Laval Dubreuil > 38 (27) (157) Henry Sun > 37 (29) (26) Robin Barker > 34 (30) (52) Adam Wildavsky > 33 (31) (23) Grant Sterling > 30 (32) (30) Peter Gill > 30 (32) richard.hills@immi.gov.au > 28 (34) Alain Gottcheiner > 26 (35) (32) Richard Bley > 25 (36) (125) Petrus Schuster > 22 (37) (31) Tim Goodwin > 22 (37) (75) Mark Abraham > 21 (39) (39) Henk Uijterwaal > 21 (39) (92) Robert E Harris > 21 (39) (42) Wayne Burrows > 20 (42) (35) Fearghal O'Boyle > 20 (42) (50) Ron Johnson > 19 (44) (24) Jean-Pierre Rocafort > 19 (44) (26) Anton Witzen > 19 (44) (63) Gordon Bower > 18 (47) Zvi Shilon > 16 (48) (61) Norman Scorbie > 14 (49) (58) Norman Hostetler > 14 (49) (69) Farley, Wally > 13 (51) (125) Pam Hadfield > 13 (51) (94) Martaandras (Andras Booc) > 13 (51) (69) Sergey Kapustin > 13 (51) Jack Rhind > 13 (51) (60) Richard Willey > 12 (56) (94) Jens & Bodil > 12 (56) (48) Michael Amos > 12 (56) (56) Brian Baresch > 11 (59) (84) James.Vickers@merck.de > 10 (60) (44) Nancy T. Dressing > 9 (61) M Smith > 9 (61) (36) Richard F Beye > 9 (61) Noel & Pam > 8 (64) (46) Tony Musgrove > 8 (64) (56) Laurie Kelso > 7 (66) (116) Aavo Heinlo > 7 (66) (67) Jan Peter Pals > 7 (66) (72) Jac Fuchs > 7 (66) (37) John R. Mayne > 7 (66) Phil Guptill > 7 (66) (75) Richard or Barbara Odlin > 6 (72) (75) ACFarwig, Christian > 6 (72) (51) David Martin > 6 (72) (49) Magda Thain > 6 (72) Nardullo Ennio > 6 (72) Ben Schelen > 6 (72) (106) Bill Segraves > 6 (72) (34) Linda Trent > 6 (72) (106) Derrick Heng > 6 (72) (69) Bruce Small > 5 (81) (84) Quango > 5 (81) (84) Lormant Philippe > 5 (81) (41) A.L. Edwards > 5 (81) (72) John Nichols > 5 (81) (82) Ted Ying > 5 (81) (125) Julie Atkinson > 4 (87) (101) Jay Apfelbaum > 4 (87) (138) Mike Dodson > 4 (87) Walt Flory > 4 (87) Jorge Pellegrini > 4 (87) H Thompson > 4 (87) Peter Bowyer > 3 (93) (116) non-reader > 3 (93) Olivier Beauvillain > 3 (93) (103) Ian Crorie > 3 (93) (92) masterit (Larry Bennett) > 3 (93) (106) Eitan Levy > 3 (93) (94) Rui Marques > 3 (93) (125) Lino Tralhao > 3 (93) (106) Sergei Litvak > 3 (93) (84) John A. Kuchenbrod > 3 (93) (79) Albert Lochli > 3 (93) (42) Bruce J.Moore > 3 (93) (103) Patrick (Carter) > 2 (105) (116) Yvan Calamé > 2 (105) (94) Flemming Bogh-Sorensen > 2 (105) (116) Edouard Beauvilain > 2 (105) (33) Jeremy Rickard > 2 (105) (157) Hegedus Laszlo > 2 (105) (125) Sveinn Runar (Svenni) Eiriksson > 2 (105) Tommy Sandsmark > 2 (105) (46) Vitold Brushtunov > 2 (105) (157) Christian Chantigny > 2 (105) (74) Irwin J. Kostal > 2 (105) (125) Joan Gerard > 2 (105) (138) Julian Lighton > 2 (105) Jim Merzon > 2 (105) (55) KRAllison@aol.com > 2 (105) Sandy E Barnes > 2 (105) (116) B.Y. > 2 (105) (116) Reg Busch > 2 (105) Derek Malloch > 1 (123) Niels Wendell Pedersen > 1 (123) (138) Trevor Walker > 1 (123) Eric Favager > 1 (123) (125) Dave Armstrong > 1 (123) (89) Jan Romanski > 1 (123) Kazimierz Chlobowski > 1 (123) (94) David Kent > 1 (123) (89) AlLeBendig > 1 (123) Sue O'Donnell > 1 (123) Dale Blank > 1 (123) (79) RCraig Hemphill > 1 (123) (157) Robert Lake > 1 (123) (63) Robert Nordgren > 1 (123) (101) Bill Bickford > 1 (123) Joshua Fendel > 1 (123) (79) Brian Meadows > 1 (123) (157) Richard Colker > 1 (123) (84) John MacGregor > 1 (123) Pur Byantara > 1 (123) gregory@pub.gov.sg > 1 (123) (63) Peter Newman > 1 (123) (75) Canberra Bridge Club > 1 (123) Tom Strong > 1 (123) (58) Michael Albert > 1 (123) S.S. (Sandra) > 1 (123) Grisbie@aol.com > 1 (123) Angela B > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 17:26:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:26:56 +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 RAA19160 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:26:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA06851 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:26:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 07 09:26:53 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JRHBFZWHXG0012WM@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:26:13 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:24:12 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:26:10 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Statistics To: "'Timmermans, Catelijne'" , "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B62F@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA19162 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hoi Catelijne, Heel goed dat plan om WL te worden. Wanneer kom je terug? Ook goed dat je niet mee doet aan dat gezeur over honden en poezen (ja ik weet dat Herman de Wael dit ook kan lezen). Wat je moet zien te ontwikkelen is de vaardigheid om de rommel uit deze lijst snel weg te gooien, daar horen de meeste stukken van Herman niet bij, hoewel sommige reacties anders zouden kunnen suggereren. Ik stuur maar een keer een Nederlandse tekst naar iedereen, om een beetje te pesten. ton kooijman > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Timmermans, Catelijne [mailto:Catelijne.Timmermans@compaq.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 6 juli 2000 14:18 > Aan: 'Herman De Wael'; Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: RE: Statistics > > > Hi, > I am one of the 'com'mers, I live in Ireland but am Dutch > (and no dogs and > cats). I am not a director, just an average player > interested in this stuff > (I want to take the directors course after I move back to the > Netherlands). > > Regards, > > Catelijne / Lynn > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > > Sent: 06 July 2000 11:27 > > To: Bridge Laws > > Subject: Statistics > > > > > > There are currently 254 addresses affiliated to blml. > > > > 124 of those have joined for the first time in 1997 or > > before > > 53 have joined in 1998 > > 41 in 1999 > > and 36 in the first half of this year. > > > > 9 people want to receive everything twice. > > > > The 245 others are distributed by zone as follows : > > > > zone 1 (Europe) 102 > > GB 31 > > NL 13 > > DE 8 > > DK 7 > > BE FR 6 > > IL 5 > > RU 4 > > PL 3 > > CH IT PT 2 > > AT CZ EE ES FI GL GR HU IE IS NO SE UA 1 > > zone 2 (N.America) 74 > > US 63 > > CA 10 > > BM 1 > > zone 3 (S.America) 1 > > CL 1 > > zone 4 (SW. Asia) 0 (all our members in zone 4 are now in > > zone 8) > > zone 5 (M.America) 1 > > GY 1 > > zone 6 (E. Asia) 5 > > JP 2 > > ID SG TW 1 > > zone 7 (Oceania) 25 > > AU 14 > > NZ 11 > > zone 8 (Africa) 2 > > EG ZA 1 > > unknown 35 > > .com 24 > > .net 10 > > .edu 1 > > > > These people are always invited to make themselves known. > > > > There have been 4224 messages to blml in the first half of > > this year, which is an average of 22.6 messages per day (27 > > in 1999) > > > > The top poster will not surprise anyone : > > > > post (rk) (rk99) > > 522 (1) (1) David Stevenson > > 354 (2) (4) Grattan Endicott > > 253 (3) (2) Herman De Wael > > 217 (4) (6) John (MadDog) Probst > > 204 (5) (11) Adam Beneschan > > 191 (6) (5) Steve Willner > > 158 (7) (14) David Burn > > 121 (8) (12) Anne Jones > > 108 (9) (7) Eric Landau > > 101 (10) Todd Zimnoch > > 96 (11) (17) David Grabiner > > 92 (12) (13) Schoder "Kojak" > > 76 (13) (16) Craig Senior > > 75 (14) (8) Michael S. Dennis > > 71 (15) (25) Martin Sinot > > 68 (16) (22) Kooijman, A > > 65 (17) (10) Jesper Dybdal > > 65 (17) (18) Dany Haimovici > > 63 (19) (9) Roger Pewick > > 57 (20) (3) Marvin L. French > > 48 (21) (20) Ed Reppert > > 46 (22) (61) Thomas Dehn > > 46 (22) (19) Tim West-Meads > > 44 (24) (28) Michael Farebrother > > 42 (25) (45) Konrad Ciborowski > > 42 (25) (21) Hirsch Davis > > 38 (27) (37) Laval Dubreuil > > 38 (27) (157) Henry Sun > > 37 (29) (26) Robin Barker > > 34 (30) (52) Adam Wildavsky > > 33 (31) (23) Grant Sterling > > 30 (32) (30) Peter Gill > > 30 (32) richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > 28 (34) Alain Gottcheiner > > 26 (35) (32) Richard Bley > > 25 (36) (125) Petrus Schuster > > 22 (37) (31) Tim Goodwin > > 22 (37) (75) Mark Abraham > > 21 (39) (39) Henk Uijterwaal > > 21 (39) (92) Robert E Harris > > 21 (39) (42) Wayne Burrows > > 20 (42) (35) Fearghal O'Boyle > > 20 (42) (50) Ron Johnson > > 19 (44) (24) Jean-Pierre Rocafort > > 19 (44) (26) Anton Witzen > > 19 (44) (63) Gordon Bower > > 18 (47) Zvi Shilon > > 16 (48) (61) Norman Scorbie > > 14 (49) (58) Norman Hostetler > > 14 (49) (69) Farley, Wally > > 13 (51) (125) Pam Hadfield > > 13 (51) (94) Martaandras (Andras Booc) > > 13 (51) (69) Sergey Kapustin > > 13 (51) Jack Rhind > > 13 (51) (60) Richard Willey > > 12 (56) (94) Jens & Bodil > > 12 (56) (48) Michael Amos > > 12 (56) (56) Brian Baresch > > 11 (59) (84) James.Vickers@merck.de > > 10 (60) (44) Nancy T. Dressing > > 9 (61) M Smith > > 9 (61) (36) Richard F Beye > > 9 (61) Noel & Pam > > 8 (64) (46) Tony Musgrove > > 8 (64) (56) Laurie Kelso > > 7 (66) (116) Aavo Heinlo > > 7 (66) (67) Jan Peter Pals > > 7 (66) (72) Jac Fuchs > > 7 (66) (37) John R. Mayne > > 7 (66) Phil Guptill > > 7 (66) (75) Richard or Barbara Odlin > > 6 (72) (75) ACFarwig, Christian > > 6 (72) (51) David Martin > > 6 (72) (49) Magda Thain > > 6 (72) Nardullo Ennio > > 6 (72) Ben Schelen > > 6 (72) (106) Bill Segraves > > 6 (72) (34) Linda Trent > > 6 (72) (106) Derrick Heng > > 6 (72) (69) Bruce Small > > 5 (81) (84) Quango > > 5 (81) (84) Lormant Philippe > > 5 (81) (41) A.L. Edwards > > 5 (81) (72) John Nichols > > 5 (81) (82) Ted Ying > > 5 (81) (125) Julie Atkinson > > 4 (87) (101) Jay Apfelbaum > > 4 (87) (138) Mike Dodson > > 4 (87) Walt Flory > > 4 (87) Jorge Pellegrini > > 4 (87) H Thompson > > 4 (87) Peter Bowyer > > 3 (93) (116) non-reader > > 3 (93) Olivier Beauvillain > > 3 (93) (103) Ian Crorie > > 3 (93) (92) masterit (Larry Bennett) > > 3 (93) (106) Eitan Levy > > 3 (93) (94) Rui Marques > > 3 (93) (125) Lino Tralhao > > 3 (93) (106) Sergei Litvak > > 3 (93) (84) John A. Kuchenbrod > > 3 (93) (79) Albert Lochli > > 3 (93) (42) Bruce J.Moore > > 3 (93) (103) Patrick (Carter) > > 2 (105) (116) Yvan Calamé > > 2 (105) (94) Flemming Bogh-Sorensen > > 2 (105) (116) Edouard Beauvilain > > 2 (105) (33) Jeremy Rickard > > 2 (105) (157) Hegedus Laszlo > > 2 (105) (125) Sveinn Runar (Svenni) Eiriksson > > 2 (105) Tommy Sandsmark > > 2 (105) (46) Vitold Brushtunov > > 2 (105) (157) Christian Chantigny > > 2 (105) (74) Irwin J. Kostal > > 2 (105) (125) Joan Gerard > > 2 (105) (138) Julian Lighton > > 2 (105) Jim Merzon > > 2 (105) (55) KRAllison@aol.com > > 2 (105) Sandy E Barnes > > 2 (105) (116) B.Y. > > 2 (105) (116) Reg Busch > > 2 (105) Derek Malloch > > 1 (123) Niels Wendell Pedersen > > 1 (123) (138) Trevor Walker > > 1 (123) Eric Favager > > 1 (123) (125) Dave Armstrong > > 1 (123) (89) Jan Romanski > > 1 (123) Kazimierz Chlobowski > > 1 (123) (94) David Kent > > 1 (123) (89) AlLeBendig > > 1 (123) Sue O'Donnell > > 1 (123) Dale Blank > > 1 (123) (79) RCraig Hemphill > > 1 (123) (157) Robert Lake > > 1 (123) (63) Robert Nordgren > > 1 (123) (101) Bill Bickford > > 1 (123) Joshua Fendel > > 1 (123) (79) Brian Meadows > > 1 (123) (157) Richard Colker > > 1 (123) (84) John MacGregor > > 1 (123) Pur Byantara > > 1 (123) gregory@pub.gov.sg > > 1 (123) (63) Peter Newman > > 1 (123) (75) Canberra Bridge Club > > 1 (123) Tom Strong > > 1 (123) (58) Michael Albert > > 1 (123) S.S. (Sandra) > > 1 (123) Grisbie@aol.com > > 1 (123) Angela B > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 18:23:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:23:23 +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 SAA19336 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:23:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.124] (d18182a7c.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.124]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA27337 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200007061645.MAA00251@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> <266mKRAozGZ5EwQE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200007061645.MAA00251@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:17:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Separate CC's Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Farebrother writes: >So, as usual, it's there - but buried in a somewhat obscure location. Ah. I believe that answers my question. Thanks. :-) >A reorganization of the regulations section (get to it from the Info >page) putting all the "other" regulations defined in other sections into >it, might be useful :-). I suggested as much to Chyah Burghard (sp?) about a year or so ago. No doubt they'll get a rountuit at some point. :-) 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/AwUBOWWTZL2UW3au93vOEQL9qACeMWlfv4y+/bsh5PYOgrd/6v140xoAoKAs yk8EOjdZfP4h0JSOjz5scgl5 =/09k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 18:46:43 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:46:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19397 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:46:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-131.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04055 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:46:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3964D170.EE8DAB56@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (this seems not to have gotten through - sorry if it turns up double next) I am so glad, Todd, that you started this thread. Means I don't have to. Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How > does the Herman 1H fall under it? > Let's summarise what we have established (well, I consider it thus, I have stated these things and they have gone largely unchallenged) 1) There are four classes of bids : systemics, mistakes, deviations and psyches. 2) Psyches are permitted. 3) There can be knowledge about psyches. According to L75C (partnership experience) this knowledge has to be disclosed. Now we have to decide whether or not the Herman-1-Heart is a psyche or a systemic (I hope we agree it is not a deviation or a mistake). First of all let me repeat what the "knowledge" is that surrounds the Herman-1-Heart : "From time to time, Herman has opened, third in hand, 1 Heart on a hand worth 0-4 points and with short hearts (0-3). He has told me that it is no good practice to open on 4 points or with 3 hearts, so if he does not have 11+ and 5 hearts, he could have 0-3 points and 0-2 hearts". This knowledge is available to ME, because I have derived it. This knowledge may be available to my partner, if he chooses to remember such things. I do not believe it matters whether or not my actual partner of the day has the knowledge or not. This knowledge would be available to my opponents, since I would write it on my CC, if only the PTB in Belgium had allowed me that. This knowledge is quite detailed. Over the course of the discussion, only one other example of such a detailed psyching tendency has come to light. I am talking about the Probst-1NT, an overcall over 1D or 1Cl with long hearts. However, I refuse to believe that there are only 2 people in the world who have regular psyching habits. Considering that these two are knowledgeable TD's and actively ethical players, we can only conclude that most of those others simply keep quiet about their psyching tendencies. Which brings me to my first remark : It would not be good for the game of bridge to disallow the Herman-1-Heart and the Probst-1NT simply because the perpetrators admit to having a habit. That would only encourage the others to remain in their respective closets. I am not saying here that therefor they must be allowed, but only that they should not be banned merely for the honesty of disclosure. There is a second reason for the same remark. Earlier this year, I ruled an "obvious" psyche systemic. The auction had started with two pairs playing complicated system and defence, and the hand in question was of a type you would not expect after that start of auction (I don't remember it all, so trust me). Although the player did an obviously antisystemic bid, it was, given the situation, no doubt (IMO) the best bid available. I found that there was no risk attached to the psyche. I was certain that this psyche had not happened before, and that the players had not discussed the situation. Nevertheless I ruled that the bid was systemic. The AC later overturned my decision, not because they disagreed with my interpretation, but because they found that my analysis of the bid being risk-free was in error. I want to continue to make such rulings. Which means that in order for some call to be ruled systemic, it should not matter whether or not the call has come up before. Perhaps the situation has never arisen. OK, let's now return to the question. What exactly is it that makes the Herman-1-Heart systemic. It cannot be the knowledge, it cannot be the previous occurence. it must be something else, if anything. Some people have written arguments stating that the Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : 1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- cards. I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an agreement ? They compare the opening to, for instance : 2Cl : 4-10, 6 cards diamonds OR 20-21 bal OR 26-27 bal OR 8 playing tricks in Majors (6c or 5-5) or 9 tricks in minors. There is however one obvious major difference between the two : In the first, there is no stopping partner from bidding 4Hearts. In the second, which is the system I regularly play, there is an answering scheme that goes : -2Di : all else - opener will pass with weak diamonds -2He/2Sp : 0-3, 5 card - opener will pass with weak diamonds or 20-21 bal -2NT : 14+,asking - opener will bid 3Di with weak diamonds, 3Cl with 20-21, 7NT with 26-27 (really ! my partner has indeed written that one in our system notes) As you can see, in all cases there is a specific reply that shows the weak option. That is not the case with the Herman-1-Heart. Which is one reason why I refuse to play Drury. I could live with a regulation that says that the Herman-1-Heart is only allowed when there is no Drury in the system. I am going to stop now. I believe I have given the right (and only) direction in which to search for a criteria by which to determine whether a "habitual psyche" is a psyche or a systemic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 18:46:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:46:40 +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 SAA19395 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-131.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04042 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3964D048.5A356CFD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:30:32 +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: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <004b01bfe779$ecf4f9c0$24c1e080@isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > > But the Herman 1H falls under Systemic psyching because he > > is psyching as part of his system. > > Bleah. I don't know if I am in the minority or the majority on this > one, but I don't like legal systems that are dependent on this degree > of subjective assessment. > indeed. > There must be a better mechanism we can use. (I lean towards > borrowing from math myself, but thats just me) > > I've never liked the term systemic psyche. For all intents and > purposes, most of these bids are simply multi-way bids that describe > some non-continuous set of hand types. > > To me, the distinquishing feature between a psyche and a systemic bid > is that a psyche is non-deterministic. > > Suppose I am dealt a hand suitable for the weak form of the Herman 1H > opening and there are two passes to me. > > Assume that there is some probability (P) that I will open this hand > 1H. > The rest of the time (1-P) I chose to pass. > > It seems clear that if P = 1 (I always open 1H with this hand), then > the Herman 1H opening is simply a two-way opening bid. In my case, P is very close to 1. The frequency of the availability of this occurence (work it out) is however very small, so that I am able to use my "systemic psyche" less about once every three months. I feel that this is also important. However, there are parts of my real system that I have never used in 5 years. So frequency alone cannot be enough. Besides, it is only my honesty which will tell the TD that I do this every possible time (I don't, really, but I come close). So that criterium falls at the second hurdle : use. > It also seems clear that if P is small enough that partner does not > anticipate the weak variant of the hand type, then the 1H opening is > a psyche. > This argument does not work for P, but for Q, where Q is the relative frequency of the hand. When I open a third hand 1He, in 98% of the cases it is a genuine 11+, 5c heart suit. Then it is a valid argument. Partner does not anticipate the weak variant. But also, when I open 2Cl, and partner has 14 points, he does not anticipate me to hold 26. Yet we have defined an answer to his asking 2NT for the 26 option (7NT). Anticipation is a difficult word. With Zia, you anticipate a psyche at almost every board. You just don't cater for it. > Is it possible to define the boundary point for parameter P that > defines whether or not a bid is a psyche? > Or for Q, for that matter. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 18:55:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:55:44 +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 SAA19437 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:55:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.242] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ATum-000Ewk-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:55:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bfe7f1$63f505c0$f25408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <1.5.4.32.20000706130436.006bdc58@mindspring.com> <1nA2tLBBmLZ5Ewg2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Separate Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:56:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: Re: Separate From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 18:55:49 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:55:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19443 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:55:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.242] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ATuh-000Ewk-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:55:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001801bfe7f1$61572960$f25408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com><396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be> <3BVYEzBSaTZ5EwiV@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 09:07:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 2:46 AM Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) -------------- \x/ -------------- > lets add that it becomes systemic if it always happens. > +=+ Now this I think I agree. However, it is clear enough that an action does not need to be systemic by such a definition in order to be a partnership understanding - such an understanding can be that something may happen once in twenty boards, once in fifty boards etc. - they are all matters of understanding or acquired partnership experience constituting an implicit agreement - something the players *know* and their opponents are entitled to know. One leaves ACs to draw a line in the sand beyond which they agree that the element of surprise exists as much for the partner as for opponent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 19:26:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:26:13 +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 TAA19507 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:26:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA15079 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:25:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: 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: <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Some people have written arguments stating that the > Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : > > 1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- > cards. > > I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an > agreement ? > > I am going to stop now. I believe I have given the right > (and only) direction in which to search for a criteria by > which to determine whether a "habitual psyche" is a psyche > or a systemic. I think we should consider the frequency with which the psyche is made on suitable hands (not the frequency of 1H openers which are psychic). Ie if all (most) suitable hands are "psyched" then that is strong evidence that the psyche is systemic. However this would, IMO, be ameliorated if HdW1H proponents were to mix other psyches of 1H into their general style. I fully agree that the existence of control bids (such as Drury) would also make it systemic. BTW if your SO regulations state that psych habits should neither be disclosed on the CC or Alerted then, assuming you disclose in answer to questions, you *are* disclosing according to regulations - even if it doesn't feel like it. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 20:55:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA19738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19733 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 20:55:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from p39s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.58] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13A71A-0002H9-00; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:28:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bfe801$9e098aa0$3a5993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ben Schelen" , References: <001701bfe466$3a103100$d906d618@knology.net> <016901bfe767$8c846d80$d7053dd4@default> Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:10:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 06 July 2000 17:15 Subject: Re: Help with conflicting alert advice > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Lake" > To: > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 10:43 PM > Subject: Help with conflicting alert advice > > > > > (I know this is a bore to those outside ACBLland, but I really am > interested > > in the answer) > > +=+ I do not think this is a bore. It helps us all when we see what the other man does. It also helps when we learn that other NBOs too can falter within their own interpretations of their own regulations - we just feel a bit better about ourselves. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 7 21:23:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:23:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19834 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:23:39 +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 13AWED-000Fbl-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:23:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:07:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Statistics References: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC2444A24@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC2444A24@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Timmermans, Catelijne wrote: >Hi, >I am one of the 'com'mers, I live in Ireland but am Dutch (and no dogs and >cats). I am not a director, just an average player interested in this stuff >(I want to take the directors course after I move back to the Netherlands). Hi, nice to hear from you. Eire, is it? I am visiting Eire tomorrow Saturday for the first time ever. It is the annual pis^H^H^H match between Dublin and Merseyside so I am in Dublin for two days. -- 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 Jul 7 21:23:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:23:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA19835 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:23:39 +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 13AWED-000Fbk-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:23:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:03:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> <266mKRAozGZ5EwQE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200007061645.MAA00251@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> 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 > >Michael Farebrother writes: > >>So, as usual, it's there - but buried in a somewhat obscure location. > >Ah. I believe that answers my question. Thanks. :-) > >>A reorganization of the regulations section (get to it from the Info >>page) putting all the "other" regulations defined in other sections into >>it, might be useful :-). > >I suggested as much to Chyah Burghard (sp?) about a year or so ago. >No doubt they'll get a rountuit at some point. :-) _________ / \ / \ / A \ | round | | tuit | \ / \ / \_________/ There you are, Chyah, just for you. -- 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 Jul 7 22:21:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:21:58 +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 WAA20023 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:20:23 +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 e67CJjV42650 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000707081506.00af6b80@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:21:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: <200007061812.LAA24191@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:12 PM 7/6/00, Adam wrote: >To get back to the point: It's possible that the author intended for >the word order to mean something significant, but IMHO this argument >is *much* weaker than the argument that an author who wanted the law >to apply equally to everyone wouldn't have included any language at >all about the class of player. Unless, of course, the writer was trying to solve the problem that the word "normal" in the text of L69-71 was being misinterpreted as "normal for the class of player involved", and was providing clarification to preclude that misinterpretation (in which case they apparently didn't do a very good job, but that's neither here nor there). Indeed, if David's and Adam's interpretation were correct, it could have been made entirely clear by replacing "normal" in the text by "normal for the class of player involved", with no need to introduce the concept of "irrational" or to write a footnote at all. 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 Jul 7 23:55:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:55:12 +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 XAA20217 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:55:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17176 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 13:53:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.5.189) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 13:53:20 -0000 Message-ID: <3965E136.71694931@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:55:02 +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: Did anybody double? References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't see any practical problem. All players are sure that they are playing the cards ; there is no doubt the auction had finished a century ago. Dany David Stevenson wrote: > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East > reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North > said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer > showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He > said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx > in his score-card. > > So what do we do? > > -- > 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 Sat Jul 8 00:02:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA19927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:59:02 +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 VAA19919 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:58:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e67BwX338437 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 07:58:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000707075304.00af6720@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:00:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000706075425.00a95bd0@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200006262011.QAA21172@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20000702101233.00adb340@pop.cais.com> <$lObMRAgv8X5EwBt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20000705081945.00aed790@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000706075425.00a95bd0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 7/6/00, David wrote: > I am biased by the fact that the footnote says > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for the class of player involved, > but not irrational." > >and it would say > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for any player, but not irrational." > >if that is what it meant. And I am similarly biased, by the fact that the footnote says > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, > ``normal'' includes play that would be careless > or inferior for the class of player involved, > but not irrational." and it would say "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved. if that is what it meant. > I do not believe that the WBFLC put a footnote in, part of which is to >be ignored, because some people come up with an interpretation that part >of it is basically meaningless. I do not understand this, as I do not believe that any part of the footnote is basically meaningless. I believe, as I've already stated, that it clarifies rather than changes the meaning of the body of the text, but that hardly makes it meaningless. > I object to any suggestion that I am basing my view of what any player >would or would not do. I am basing my view on the wording of the >footnote. Caught out yet again by my refusal to use smileys! 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 Jul 8 01:22:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:20:05 +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 AAA20320 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.200]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13322 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:19:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3965B7EC.DF10D827@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 12:58:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <20000706162418.38124.qmail@hotmail.com> <9alrzbA1vTZ5EwDC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe it has to be said : David Stevenson wrote: > > > I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. > Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, > then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any > other way but showing a pass card? He has not passed here by the > regulations: why should we assume he has passed? > I am squarely behind David on this one. Just so as you don't all believe that we are always in opposite corners. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 02:35:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:24:58 +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 BAA20627 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:24:50 +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 IAA13706; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:21:13 -0700 Message-Id: <200007071521.IAA13706@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:21:15 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000707081506.00af6b80@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:21:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:12 PM 7/6/00, Adam wrote: > > >To get back to the point: It's possible that the author intended for > >the word order to mean something significant, but IMHO this argument > >is *much* weaker than the argument that an author who wanted the law > >to apply equally to everyone wouldn't have included any language at > >all about the class of player. > > Unless, of course, the writer was trying to solve the problem that the word > "normal" in the text of L69-71 was being misinterpreted as "normal for the > class of player involved", and was providing clarification to preclude that > misinterpretation OK, I understand. The author thought that if they wrote a footnote that made no reference whatsoever to the class of player involved, everyone would assume that the application of the law depended on the class of player involved. So they added the clause "for the class of player involved" to make it clear that the law was intended to be applied equally regardless of the class of player involved. Makes perfect sense to me. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 02:40:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:40:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA20995 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:40:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA06511 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:39:44 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21417 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:39:43 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:39:43 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15183 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:39:42 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA07541 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:39:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:39:41 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200007071639.RAA07541@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Did anybody double? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > W N E S > 1D P 1S P > 2C P 4H! X > P P > > 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East > reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North > said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer > showed out! > > 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He > said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx > in his score-card. I assume play continued from trick 5, so there are 52 cards exposed during the auction. David Stevenson wrote: > > I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. > Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, > then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any > other way but showing a pass card? He has not passed here by the > regulations: why should we assume he has passed? Because his partner assumed he had passed. I have sympathy for declarer, but not for the declaring side: one of them didn't see a call, the other did not remind their partner to make a call, i.e. "you can't lead, my partner has still to call". If declarer normally does not make the final pass I have little sympathy for him, if he does make all the calls he should I have little sympathy for dummy. 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 Jul 8 02:48:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:42:20 +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 XAA20181 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:42:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14939 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 13:40:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.5.189) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 13:40:26 -0000 Message-ID: <3965DE2F.BB3D8A58@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:42:07 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> <39647556.BAB96EAC@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I tried not to be involved before, but only some "dry" remarks...... But now - I feel we overjump any reasonable sense of discussion. There can't be a systemic psyche. If it belongs to the system...no psych. And if Herman opens 1H with his 2 cards and 5 cats in 7th position more than once in a year , he MUST : "either put it in his CC or be kicked out from my club". Seriously and respectfully Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > > > What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How > > >does the Herman 1H fall under it? > > > > > > But the Herman 1H falls under Systemic psyching because he is psyching > > as part of his system. > > > > Come on David, you can do better than that. > > With an answer like that you really need to define the word > system. > > Besides, just what is "systemic psyching" ? > A systemic or a psyche ? > > Really David, this reply is getting us nowhere really fast, > and in circles at that. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 03:08:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:08:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f13.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA21078 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 79560 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jul 2000 17:08:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000707170812.79559.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:08:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:08:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > Aren't there a number of things you can do outside the prescribed > >regulations that will be ruled in some manner if your intent was > >incontrovertible? Tapping your bidding cards, picking them up, writing >the > >contract on the score card, making a lead face down and asking "any > >questions" all unambiguously show a desire to have passed. > > No, Todd. Tapping your bidding cards probably show a pass, but the >remainder do not show a pass from a player who does not believe he has a >call. Fair enough, his intent is not incontrovertible, but he has still shown a desire to pass whether or not he had one. I don't expect anyone at the table to think that he failed to see the double and didn't know that he had a call to make rather than think that he passed. > I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. What a strange auction! His partner opens 1D and rebids 2C. He jumps to 4H with a void. He doesn't expect to get doubled? His partner passed what I would assume is a forcing bid and he didn't double check the table? I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't think he's owed anything. You mentioned that this was at IMPs. Would you care as much if it were at MP where the damage from this mistake is fixed and every place declarer could run scores 0? >Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, >then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any >other way but showing a pass card? A pick-up partner aside, maybe his partner could have said something. I don't know how without transmitting UI that suggests pulling the double over passing, but maybe. >He has not passed here by the >regulations: why should we assume he has passed? We don't have to anymore once his partner has made the decision for him by exposing his hand. I doubt defenders will claim to have been harmed. As far as the penalty card question, can the laws be enforced retroactively if the director is not called at the time of the irregularity? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 03:10:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:10:02 +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 DAA21093 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:09:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive516.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.38]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA09637; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ba01bfe836$d0f728c0$2614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:14:19 -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 Perhaps I am all wet here...but we are using bid boxes here. Wouldn't West, whose partner has not yet called, have the chance at a 25A change of call? He has passed partner in an apparent splinter that he alerted, and may well think that the pair is in 5c or something. He clearly has not paused for thought as it appears most likely he has been doing no thinking in this auction, but has his mind on something more palatable, such as the cleavage of the caddy or whose turn it is to buy a round. At the very least the pair are well matched...and may have fit in better at a Star Wars convention this evening. Much as I deplore the practice, in the ACBL it is almost automatic to grant a 25A change of call if timely...and though East is compelled to pass at his turn, he has not yet done so. Craig Senior >David Stevenson wrote: > >> W N E S >> 1D P 1S P >> 2C P 4H! X >> P P >> >> 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, and East >> reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led face down, North >> said "No questions". At about T5 a defender led a trump - and declarer >> showed out! >> >> 4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was horrified! He >> said that he had not seen the double! Of course, he entered 4H not 4Hx >> in his score-card. >> >> So what do we do? >> >> -- >> 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 Sat Jul 8 03:22:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:22:00 +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 DAA21123 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:21:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15954; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:18:09 -0700 Message-Id: <200007071718.KAA15954@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 03:09:57 PDT." <9alrzbA1vTZ5EwDC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:18:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. > Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, > then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any > other way but showing a pass card? He has not passed here by the > regulations: why should we assume he has passed? Possibly, the lack of sympathy is due to the fact that the *only* way to solve the problem is to end the practice of making one's final pass by silently picking up the bidding cards or by writing the contract on one's score card. If this were widely considered unacceptable, this incident could never have happened---when declarer picked up his score card to write the score, everyone else would have pointed out that the auction wasn't over, and then declarer would have realized the problem (or if he didn't and passed without thinking, it would be unambiguously his fault). Since it's considered acceptable, however, there's no way to tell whether declarer intended to pass or thought the auction was over, and nobody---neither declarer nor any of his three opponents---would have any particular reason to inquire to make sure declarer knew the auction was over. So the only options seem to be to find a way to blame it on declarer (not totally unreasonable, since he should have been able to distinguish a double card from a pass card), or to find a way to get everyone to stop this practice. This last is not necessarily easy; it involves not just passing a regulation (the easy part), but getting everyone to follow it and to remind their partners and opponents to follow it, and IMHO this last is made harder by the fact that the problem it's intended to solve happens very infrequently, and it seems to me that people are going to be less motivated to change a habitual practice (which requires an extra arm movement) if the reason for the change is obscure to them, and that bridge organizations are similarly less motivated to make a point of reminding everyone about the new regulation. Maybe that's why so many are choosing the first option. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 03:22:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:47:06 +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 CAA21019 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:55 +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 13AbGz-000OTq-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:46:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:32:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <004b01bfe779$ecf4f9c0$24c1e080@isi.com> <3964D048.5A356CFD@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3964D048.5A356CFD@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3964D048.5A356CFD@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Richard Willey wrote: >> >> > But the Herman 1H falls under Systemic psyching because he >> > is psyching as part of his system. >> >> Bleah. I don't know if I am in the minority or the majority on this >> one, but I don't like legal systems that are dependent on this degree >> of subjective assessment. >> > >indeed. > I've remembered an auction from an Oxford-Cambridge match. Let's say you hold Kx AQJxx AQx Kx. Partner opens 2NT. Can we have an opinion on the auction 2N 3H (transfer) 3S 7N I liked this auction a lot in 1975. I'm not so sure now. 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 Jul 8 03:31:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:31:32 +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 DAA21145 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 03:31:15 +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 e67HV5W42827 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:31:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000707132008.00aa6b00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:32:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: <200007071521.IAA13706@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:21 AM 7/7/00, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 02:12 PM 7/6/00, Adam wrote: > > > > >To get back to the point: It's possible that the author intended for > > >the word order to mean something significant, but IMHO this argument > > >is *much* weaker than the argument that an author who wanted the law > > >to apply equally to everyone wouldn't have included any language at > > >all about the class of player. > > > > Unless, of course, the writer was trying to solve the problem that the > word > > "normal" in the text of L69-71 was being misinterpreted as "normal for the > > class of player involved", and was providing clarification to preclude > that > > misinterpretation > >OK, I understand. The author thought that if they wrote a footnote >that made no reference whatsoever to the class of player involved, >everyone would assume that the application of the law depended on the >class of player involved. So they added the clause "for the class of >player involved" to make it clear that the law was intended to be >applied equally regardless of the class of player involved. > >Makes perfect sense to me. I write A. Some people believe that A includes B; some don't. How do I clarify my intention without mentioning B? I would challenge Adam as follows: Assume hypothetically that we can classify any play into one of three categories: (1) normal, which depends on the class of player involved (might be condered "careless" or "inferior" for a better player); (2) careless or inferior, which depends on the class of player involved (might be considered "normal" for a lesser player); and (3) irrational, which does not depend on the class of player involved. Now assume that you wish to clarify that in a particular context, when you use the word "normal" you want to encompass both (1) and (2), but not (3). How would you do that without mentioning the class of player involved? As I read the footnote, had it not included the words "for the class of player involved" it would do absolutely nothing to clarify precisely the point which we are debating. 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 Jul 8 03:54:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:20:21 +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 AAA20339 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:20:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.200]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13400 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:19:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3965BB8F.6C11E5D6@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:14:23 +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: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be> <3BVYEzBSaTZ5EwiV@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 <396474AF.ED7AD714@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > > snip > >> > >> What exactly is the metric for ruling a bid a systematic psyche? How > >> does the Herman 1H fall under it? > >> > big snip > > > >Some people have written arguments stating that the > >Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : > > > >1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- > >cards. > > I don't agree that this is what the convention card would say > because that is an agreement and would be unlicensed. It would have to > say something like: > Of course it is not what the CC would say. I was stating that some people argue that it is what it should say. > 3rd seat: 5+cards, 11+ or occasionally psyched when holding 0-2hcp and > 2 cards. Frequency c. 1% of all 3rd seat 1H openers (or whatever it > might be) > That is indeed a better way of formulating. But I would rather keep the psyche off the system and onto a separate part of the CC (with a note pointing to it, perhaps). > The psychic aspect occurs because it is only wielded out some of the > time. I would immediately adjust if it occurred on every occasion as it > is use of an unlicensed convention (even if partner never fields it), > Sadly, that criterium is not of great use, since you need the person's testimony to apply it. > The "Probst 1NT" is about 5-10% of the times I hold a long weak H suit > and occurs about 2-3% of all 1NT overcalls for example. > > The Herman-1-He occurs say 75% of the times I hold the suitable hand, but this occurs so rarely that it also turns out to be about 2-3% of all third-hand 1He openings. > >I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an > >agreement ? > > > snip > > > >I am going to stop now. I believe I have given the right > >(and only) direction in which to search for a criteria by > >which to determine whether a "habitual psyche" is a psyche > >or a systemic. > > > lets add that it becomes systemic if it always happens. > I don't believe that is a good criterium. The fact that it is a psyche on a small proportion of actual bids made seems more correct. I shall calculate the frequency of the Herman-1-He. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 04:04:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:11:42 +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 AAA20280 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19884 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 14:09:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.5.189) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 14:09:49 -0000 Message-ID: <3965E512.9A559711@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:11:31 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <39646CB0.D64C2E45@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that we start again to discuss some..<..> ! There is no doubt that the moment the declarer played a card he is awarded that the auction died (or ended , in the more polite way ). If we want to become the most accurate laws makers I agree to add a "finale " to law 25b ; something like .."but if declarer played a card to the first trick - from dummy or his hand (??) - the auction can't be changed"....... I wouldn't try to cover all the possible cases when all people agree that knocking the table , or taping the pass already there or .......etc. means that the last player passed. Don't try to add the appearance of a Godzilla or the Big-Ben's ringing or any nut to jump out of my mouth as "an agreed end of the auction". Enjoy the game and the "popular" agreements Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Anton Witzen wrote: > > > > >i think i should apply l21a. > > >it is the responsibility of the player to watch the bidding i think. > > >so writing down the contract ends the bidding period (and includes the > > >final pass by declarer) > > > > Are you suggesting that when the regulations for bidding are that they > > are made with bidding cards that you are going to say that declarer > > writing on his a score-card is a pass? > > > > It is, if he had the intention of passing. > By which I mean, he cannot write down the correct contract > and then change his mind about his final pass. > This is exactly the same as tapping the bidding card or > simply removing them, both of which are considered as > passes. > > But if he writes the contract (say the 3NT of Brian's > example) as undoubled, then no, he has not passed. > > Which does not solve our original problem. > > No, he has not passed, and there have been cards shown > during the auction. He is now forced to pass, and all the > shown cards become penalty cards. Nowhere in the laws does > it say that these have to be played in exactly the same > order. But of course that is the sane thing to do. > > Perhaps the law about the end of the auction should include > a bit "regardles of whether or not there have been three > passes, the auction has ended when dummy is faced". Then > there is only one penalty card, and a true dummy, and play > can continue normally. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 04:22:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:47:06 +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 CAA21017 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:55 +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 13AbGz-000OTp-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:46:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:26:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes snip > >By the way, declarer's self-serving comment that "he had not >seen the double" is, unlike many self-serving comments, clearly >true based on the content of declarer's hand. this is re-inforced by the entry on his score card. I am clear the auction is not yet complete. I've concluded we can go one of two routes: 1) We can enforce the pass (because we have cards exposed in the auction), allow the opening lead and play the hand with 9 penalty cards 2) We can adjust on the basis that the opening leader (as indeed I sometimes do as a joke) asked "Is it my lead?" when he knew the opponent's last bid would leave them playing in our suit. I'll expand this: I open 1H, the auction proceeds 1H 1S P 2Ha x from me. I'll say "My lead?" laughter, the auction continues and we've had a bit of fun. Now it is possible that the person who did make an "opening lead" in the middle of an auction could have known that this would be likely to damage the non-offending side. On this basis I can adjust the contract to something sensible after we've got to 4Hx. I'm going for route 2. 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 Jul 8 04:59:11 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:20:09 +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 AAA20322 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 00:19:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.200]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13346 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:19:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3965BA37.97B9C739@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:08:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > > I don't like the idea of replaying a hand that's just been played > (see DWS' post at end of my post; 4H went down six). > > Do you realise that declarer picked up his bidding cards because > he thought that there had already been three passes, thinking that > the auction was over before it reached him? Declarer never made > any attempt to pass. Had he realised that it was his turn to call, he > obviously would not have passed 4H in his void suit. > Declarer has not passed. True. Then cards have been shown in the auction. Now he has to pass. Unless we rule the contract unplayable, as you seem to want to do. > As DWS indicated (below), the play of 4H/4HX has been > completed, and a ruling must be made. The contract went > down six, so the possible rulings seem to be: > > (1) 4H -6 or > (2) 4HX -6 or > (3) an adjusted score, under L82B1 and/or L12A2. > > Since three of the players at the table incorrectly assumed that > declarer passed when he made no attempt to do so, I think that > it is reasonable to rule under L82B1 that an error in procedure > has occurred and that an adjusted score should be awarded. > It seems to me that this is a nicce way of handling the case, but I don't believe it is completely according to the Laws. The error in procedure (cards shown during the bidding) are clearly handled in the Laws, so a forced pass it is. However, that leads us to a multitude of penalty cards, which is insoluble as well. > What adjusted score? Declarer has erred by not seeing his LHO's > call (I wonder if declarer is colour-blind?), and the other three > players > have erred by assuming that a common but unlawful practice of > passing by "picking up one's bidding cards" has occurred. Thus > both sides are at fault. Awarding an artificial score under L12C1 > is right if "owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained". An > irregularity is defined in the FLB as "a deviation from the correct > procedures set forth in the Laws". Thus an irregularity has occurred, > the play should be voided and cannot be replayed. Thus "no result > can be obtained". > I would favour this approach only if I cannot find anyone to blame for the mistake. Clearly something like "why did you pass, partner", when dummy comes down, followed by "because he doubled" from dummy, would be normal under the circumstances. I would like to know why that one did not happen. If it had, we would be playing without penalty cards. And so on. So for example, if declarer is colour blind and deaf, I would rule the board inplayable and award (A or A+ under those circumstances even). > If it's matchpoints it seems that 50% to all is correct ("contestant > only partly at fault" in L12C1) but perhaps 40% to all is possible > (if every "contestant directly at fault"). > Under other circumstances, it would always be AV-, or 4HX-6 > This may seem harsh to the pair that appears to have just obtained > a top, but if I were in either of their seats, I would have asked > "declarer" to call, and he would not then have passed. I think > (only think, mind you) that that would be the correct procedure. > I am also looking for any (even small) mistake in opponents, so that I can take away their top. > I assumed in my ruling that the SO has not used L18F to authorise > "picking up the bidding cards" as a Pass. I also assumed that > Bidding Boxes are in use. > I don't believe any SO has such a regulation. The NBB has a regulation that says that they will rule "as if", not that it is allowed. > By the way, declarer's self-serving comment that "he had not > seen the double" is, unlike many self-serving comments, clearly > true based on the content of declarer's hand. > Very clearly indeed. > As usual recently , my analysis is different from everyone else's. > Which does not mean it is wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 05:12:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA21408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 05:12:16 +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 FAA21403 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 05:12:08 +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 MAA18275; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:08:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200007071908.MAA18275@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:32:35 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000707132008.00aa6b00@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 12:08:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > Unless, of course, the writer was trying to solve the problem that the > > word > > > "normal" in the text of L69-71 was being misinterpreted as "normal for the > > > class of player involved", and was providing clarification to preclude > > that > > > misinterpretation > > > >OK, I understand. The author thought that if they wrote a footnote > >that made no reference whatsoever to the class of player involved, > >everyone would assume that the application of the law depended on the > >class of player involved. So they added the clause "for the class of > >player involved" to make it clear that the law was intended to be > >applied equally regardless of the class of player involved. > > > >Makes perfect sense to me. > > I write A. Some people believe that A includes B; some don't. How do I > clarify my intention without mentioning B? Oh, you mention B, but you include a negative word right next to B, like "not" or "regardless" or "irrelevant" or "irrespective" or something to indicate that you mean to say B was *not* the intent. OK, so maybe the author blew it; you've argued that the author of the footnote added this phrase as a clarification but didn't do a good job of it. My feeling is that this particular job would be SO bad, and SO confusing, that your explanation for the wording of the footnote seems quite bizarre, and that almost any other explanation (e.g. the explanation that the author *did* intend for the class of the player involved to make a difference) must be considered much more likely, and that common sense would dictate that we assume the less bizarre explanation. > As I read the footnote, had it not included the words "for the class of > player involved" it would do absolutely nothing to clarify precisely the > point which we are debating. Right. The addition of those words does clarify the intended meaning of the footnote. Unfortunately, it clarifies it to have a meaning that you don't like. I don't like it either. I would much prefer an objective, knowable standard for determining what possible plays are covered by a claim statement. But I don't believe it's appropriate to torture words to make them say what I want them to say---whether the words are in the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, or the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Unfortunately, the idea that it's OK to twist words around until they say something one likes is becoming more accepted in our society; how else could four Supreme Court justices insist that a violent rape against a women is an act of "interstate commerce"? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 05:17:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA21034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:47:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA21018 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:55 +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 13AbGz-000OTr-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:46:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:38:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Separate CC's References: <200007061625.MAA14514@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 >Steve Willner wrote: >>Does the EBU allow varying notrump ranges or other minor variations >>below level 4? Drury? If so, at what point does an accumulation of >>such variations constitute a new system? And does anyone have insight >>about why the EBU wishes to impose such restrictions? > > It is a judgement matter when such variations become a new system, I >suppose. Different no-trump ranges do not make a new system - it says >so in the Glossary. Drury [the 347th most commonly played convention in >England] is irrelevant. In general, differences in approach because of >being 3rd/4th hand are taken as a matter of course. > > I wonder whether John Probst has not gone over the line. 5-card >majors and Acol [=4-card majors] are two Basic Systems, and I think >5-card majors 1st/2nd and Acol 3rd/4th sounds like two systems to me. I don't think I'd define our system as that. For example a 3rd/4th seat major opener followed by a rebid shows full opening values and a 5 card suit. The point is that weak (11-13) flattish hand are opened with 4 card major in 3rd and 4th, intending to pass, and systemically so. I think this is a treatment. -- 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 Jul 8 06:26:31 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 06:26:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21621 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 06:26:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA02736 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:25:45 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 21:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: 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: <001801bfe7f1$61572960$f25408c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ Now this I think I agree. However, it is clear > enough that an action does not need to be > systemic by such a definition in order to be a > partnership understanding - such an understanding > can be that something may happen once in twenty > boards, once in fifty boards etc. - they are all > matters of understanding or acquired partnership > experience constituting an implicit agreement - > something the players *know* and their opponents > are entitled to know. So long as we also accept that such understandings are, of themselves, disclosable but neither regulable or illegal (subsequent actions by the partner may also be infractions subject to redress). Also, IMO, there is a difference between "understanding" and "implicit agreement". I have many understandings with various partners that are much better categorised by the phrase "implicit (or sometimes explicit) disagreement". Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 06:58:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 06:58:58 +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 GAA21748 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 06:58:50 +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 QAA05372 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21914 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:58:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007072058.QAA21914@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: Adam Beneschan > Right. The addition of those words does clarify the intended meaning > of the footnote. Unfortunately, it clarifies it to have a meaning > that you don't like. The meaning is not so clear to everybody, I'm afraid. And I don't think it is beneficial to attribute motives to other contributors and then criticize the motives you have invented. Based on Grattan's message, it seems the actual sequence of events was that the 1975 Laws suggested that the claimer's ability was NOT to be taken into account, and the footnote was added in 1987 in order to say that ability SHOULD be considered. OK, fine. That is largely consistent with current practice (although maybe not at the YC), and isn't obviously unfair. My reading of the two texts, with as little prejudice as I can manage (but with the assistance of the 1975 Director's Guide), comes to the exact opposite conclusion on both versions! You are welcome to doubt Eric's and my reading comprehension, but an attack on our motives is out of line. > how else could four Supreme Court justices insist that a > violent rape against a women is an act of "interstate commerce"? Are you thinking of the Federal "hate crimes" law? I thought the decision was that rape and similar crimes are _not_ matters of interstate commerce, thus making them outside Federal jurisdiction. (Carjacking, however, remains a federal crime because a car might be driven across a state line.) In any case, the plain meaning of the text is only one factor in interpreting statute law. Intent overrides. Otherwise, the Americans with Disabilities Act would require that blind people be eligible to be hired as pilots and drivers. (Or so I'm told; I haven't checked that the language that's been quoted is actually in the law.) None of this seems to have much relevance to bridge. Analogies with civil law are imperfect, as we all know. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 07:07:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:07:02 +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 HAA21779 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:06:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from 62wim.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 ESMTP id e67L6i365086 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:06:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000707162146.00af4650@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:08:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-Reply-To: <200007071908.MAA18275@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:08 PM 7/7/00, Adam wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > I write A. Some people believe that A includes B; some don't. How do I > > clarify my intention without mentioning B? > >Oh, you mention B, but you include a negative word right next to B, >like "not" or "regardless" or "irrelevant" or "irrespective" or >something to indicate that you mean to say B was *not* the intent. But I'm arguing that A includes B - "'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved". It is the opposite position that would require a negative, or restrictive, word, in order to clarify the meaning. I don't buy the argument that the footnote would mean the same thing if what it said was "'normal' includes only play that would be normal for the class of player involved" ("only" being the needed restrictive word), which seems to be what the opposing camp believes. When this thread started, I had no position on this point. As I have been reading and thinking about it my position has not only developed but hardened. My declarer play is normally impeccable (this is a hypothetical example, folks). But today I am quite distracted. I have a number of other things on my mind, and a nasty headache to boot. It's so bad that I might even misplay A10xx opposite KQ9xx -- something I would normally never do. I am concerned that if David's and Adam's interpretation of the footnote is correct, this need not matter. I need only claim without making a statement on every hand and let the TD work out what I (a player of my class) would do were I not having a once-in-ten-years bad day, and it won't matter a bit that, just for today, I might not be up to playing that well. One of the things that makes bridge the game we all love is that a pair of duffers having a good day can outplay a pair of experts having a bad day. If an expert makes a bad claim, are we not required to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending duffer, and assume that this might be the case. Knowing that it *might* be, how can we justify adjudicating claims in such a way as to give a trick to the expert that we wouldn't give to the duffer? Where in the laws does it say that when adjudicating a bad claim made by an expert against a duffer, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the expert, notwithstanding that he is the offender? In 35 years of playing competitively, I have seen hundreds, probably thousands, or occasions on which expert players made plays so absurdly careless or ridiculously inferior that they would embarrass Mrs. Guggenheim. Had they only claimed without a statement before they did so, and been lucky enough to catch a TD (or AC majority) of the David/Adam school, those plays would have been effectively "unmade". Would anyone change their position if the footnote read "'normal' includes play that would be absurdly careless or ridiculously inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational"? And, if so, why should it make a difference? 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 Jul 8 07:56:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:56:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21929 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.96] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Ag6o-000Gc1-00; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:56:30 +0100 Message-ID: <00e601bfe85e$8760c860$605408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:57:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) > So long as we also accept that such understandings are, of themselves, > disclosable but neither regulable or illegal (subsequent actions by the > partner may also be infractions subject to redress). > +=+ I have been led to believe that a basis for regulations on the subject of psyching is that to have an understanding that a bid of a suit may be made on a hand in which the naming of that suit will not necessarily convey one of the three meanings excluded in the definition of 'convention', creates a convention use of which can be regulated. Also any understanding as to initial action on a hand a King or more less than average may be regulated. In each case the authority quoted to me was Law 40D. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 08:11:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:11:56 +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 IAA21985 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:11:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21725; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:08:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200007072208.PAA21725@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:58:29 PDT." <200007072058.QAA21914@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:08:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Right. The addition of those words does clarify the intended meaning > > of the footnote. Unfortunately, it clarifies it to have a meaning > > that you don't like. > > The meaning is not so clear to everybody, I'm afraid. And I don't > think it is beneficial to attribute motives to other contributors and > then criticize the motives you have invented. Sorry, I might have gone a little overboard there. I got on a roll, and then I rolled off a cliff. (Bonus question: How many metaphors have been mixed in this paragraph?) My apologies to both of you. > > how else could four Supreme Court justices insist that a > > violent rape against a women is an act of "interstate commerce"? > > Are you thinking of the Federal "hate crimes" law? I thought the > decision was that rape and similar crimes are _not_ matters of > interstate commerce, thus making them outside Federal jurisdiction. Right---the four justices I referred to were the dissenters. > In any case, the plain meaning of the text is only one factor in > interpreting statute law. Intent overrides. Of course, in the "hate crimes" case, the relevant "intent" here would be the intent of the people who wrote the "interstate commerce" clause. > None of this seems to have much relevance to bridge. Analogies with > civil law are imperfect, as we all know. Some of the principles are the same, though. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 09:45:08 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 09:45:08 +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 JAA22254 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 09:45:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra537749 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 09:39:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-213-31.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.31]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Woozy-MailRouter V2.9 13/886255); 08 Jul 2000 09:39:52 Message-ID: <011601bfe8d0$da873980$c9d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:37:09 +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: >Peter Gill wrote: >> Since three of the players at the table incorrectly assumed that >> declarer passed when he made no attempt to do so, I think that >> it is reasonable to rule under L82B1 that an error in procedure >> has occurred and that an adjusted score should be awarded. > >It seems to me that this is a nice way of handling the >case, but I don't believe it is completely according to the >Laws. The error in procedure (cards shown during the >bidding) are clearly handled in the Laws, so a forced pass >it is. >However, that leads us to a multitude of penalty cards, >which is insoluble as well. But all 52 cards had been played. David Stevenson's original post said that 4H went down six. The only way a contract can go down six is if all 52 cards have been played (or claimed or conceded). 26 penalty cards??? OK, I've just been reading on BLML about an imaginative "two psyches in a lifetime" concept, but now we have the idea that "declarer, having gone down six, replays the contract in his void with 26 defensive penalty cards". He may even make 4H under these circumstances, to salvage something from the board! Is this really what bridge in the Northern Hemisphere is like? :) I still prefer L82B1 (error in procedure), once play is completed, until I see a better suggestion. Peter Gill Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 11:08:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:08:45 +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 LAA22568 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:08:36 +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 13Aj6Y-0004Rl-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:08:27 +0100 Message-ID: <$FdaFlCxnnZ5EwDT@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:46:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200007072058.QAA21914@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007072058.QAA21914@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200007072058.QAA21914@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Adam Beneschan >> Right. The addition of those words does clarify the intended meaning >> of the footnote. Unfortunately, it clarifies it to have a meaning >> that you don't like. > >The meaning is not so clear to everybody, I'm afraid. And I don't >think it is beneficial to attribute motives to other contributors and >then criticize the motives you have invented. > >Based on Grattan's message, it seems the actual sequence of events was >that the 1975 Laws suggested that the claimer's ability was NOT to be >taken into account, and the footnote was added in 1987 in order to say >that ability SHOULD be considered. OK, fine. That is largely >consistent with current practice (although maybe not at the YC), and >isn't obviously unfair. Ability is considered at the YC but, as I've posted elsewhere in this thread, while the goal-posts are movable, I don't think they can be moved very much. I don't think I rule much different from most EBU TD's in this respect whether or not it is an EBU or a club event. This particular law is applied pretty uniformly in the UK, and ability is taken into account at least to some extent. DWS, perhaps you'd care to comment on that. 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 Jul 8 11:20:50 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:20:50 +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 LAA22615 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:20:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25582; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:17:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200007080117.SAA25582@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:08:13 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000707162146.00af4650@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:17:05 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:08 PM 7/7/00, Adam wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > I write A. Some people believe that A includes B; some don't. How do I > > > clarify my intention without mentioning B? > > > >Oh, you mention B, but you include a negative word right next to B, > >like "not" or "regardless" or "irrelevant" or "irrespective" or > >something to indicate that you mean to say B was *not* the intent. > > But I'm arguing that A includes B - "'normal' includes play that would be > careless or inferior for the class of player involved". It is the opposite > position that would require a negative, or restrictive, word, in order to > clarify the meaning. I don't buy the argument that the footnote would mean > the same thing if what it said was "'normal' includes only play that would > be normal for the class of player involved" ("only" being the needed > restrictive word), which seems to be what the opposing camp believes. You may be technically correct, from a mathematical and logical standpoint. That's really beside the point. The point is: Suppose the original law said just "Normal includes the inferior or careless, but not the irrational" (the 1975 footnote, according to Grattan), and people started thinking, incorrectly, that we were supposed to rule the same bad claims differently based on players' expertise, and a lawmaker decided the law needed to be amended to clarify that we were supposed to treat everyone equally. What would the lawmaker have written? Would he have thought something like, "If I say that the terms 'inferior' or 'careless' are relative to the class of player involved and are included in the definition of 'normal', but omit the phrase when talking about the term 'irrational', the readers will understand that we're supposed to rule the same way for experts as for Mrs. Guggenheim"? Would he have thought this, when there are certainly a dozen ways to say things more clearly, such as simply adding a sentence such as "The Director must not take the claimer's expertise into account when ruling on what constitutes a 'normal' play"? I don't think so, unless the lawmaker was seriously twisted or seriously inebriated. I think the possibility is very remote that that was what happened. It seems much less remote to assume that a lawmaker who added the phrase "for the class of player involved" would mean that the director *is* supposed to take the class of player into account. Even if the lawmaker may have stuck the phrase at a less-than-optimal place in the sentence. > When this thread started, I had no position on this point. As I > have been reading and thinking about it my position has not only > developed but hardened. [snip] > In 35 years of playing competitively, I have seen hundreds, probably > thousands, or occasions on which expert players made plays so > absurdly careless or ridiculously inferior that they would embarrass > Mrs. Guggenheim. Had they only claimed without a statement before > they did so, and been lucky enough to catch a TD (or AC majority) of > the David/Adam school, those plays would have been effectively > "unmade". I agree with all this. But it appears to me that the Laws' authors don't (or didn't). I think the Law needs to be changed, and in particular, I tend to agree that the stuff about "normal" and "irrational" should be the same for all players (actually, I believe those two words should be eliminated and replaced with something else). But I don't think the current Laws support us; nor do I believe the current Laws can be interpreted to support our ideas about what the game should be like, without stretching the language further than it should be. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 12:22:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22705 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:31 +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 13Ajh9-000HhN-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:18 +0100 Message-ID: <3OMpmlATqnZ5Ewi7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:49:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <20000707170812.79559.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000707170812.79559.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 am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. > > What a strange auction! His partner opens 1D and rebids 2C. He jumps >to 4H with a void. He doesn't expect to get doubled? His partner passed >what I would assume is a forcing bid and he didn't double check the table? >I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't think he's owed anything. > You mentioned that this was at IMPs. Would you care as much if it were >at MP where the damage from this mistake is fixed and every place declarer >could run scores 0? Yes, I would care as much whatever the form of scoring, because I do not like a declarer who follows the regs being shafted because others don't. -- 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 Sat Jul 8 13:01:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22706 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:32 +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 13Ajh9-000HhM-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:18 +0100 Message-ID: <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:46:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> 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 <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter >Gill writes > >snip > >> >>By the way, declarer's self-serving comment that "he had not >>seen the double" is, unlike many self-serving comments, clearly >>true based on the content of declarer's hand. > >this is re-inforced by the entry on his score card. I am clear the >auction is not yet complete. > >I've concluded we can go one of two routes: > >1) We can enforce the pass (because we have cards exposed in the >auction), allow the opening lead and play the hand with 9 penalty cards OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never happened. -- 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 Sat Jul 8 13:22:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:46 +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 LAA22703 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:30 +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 13Ajh9-000HhK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:37:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200007061639.MAA14531@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200007061812.LAA24191@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000707081506.00af6b80@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000707081506.00af6b80@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:12 PM 7/6/00, Adam wrote: > >>To get back to the point: It's possible that the author intended for >>the word order to mean something significant, but IMHO this argument >>is *much* weaker than the argument that an author who wanted the law >>to apply equally to everyone wouldn't have included any language at >>all about the class of player. > >Unless, of course, the writer was trying to solve the problem that the word >"normal" in the text of L69-71 was being misinterpreted as "normal for the >class of player involved", and was providing clarification to preclude that >misinterpretation (in which case they apparently didn't do a very good job, >but that's neither here nor there). > >Indeed, if David's and Adam's interpretation were correct, it could have >been made entirely clear by replacing "normal" in the text by "normal for >the class of player involved", with no need to introduce the concept of >"irrational" or to write a footnote at all. Sure, but people do not get wording perfect, that is normal. However, it makes little sense for the actual wording to be interpreted as Steve suggests: that is not just poor wording, that is illogical. -- 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 Sat Jul 8 13:48:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22704 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:46:31 +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 13Ajh9-000HhL-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:46:17 +0100 Message-ID: <2OTpWeAvlnZ5EwCM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 01:44:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <9alrzbA1vTZ5EwDC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200007071718.KAA15954@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200007071718.KAA15954@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: > >> I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. >> Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, >> then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any >> other way but showing a pass card? He has not passed here by the >> regulations: why should we assume he has passed? > >Possibly, the lack of sympathy is due to the fact that the *only* way >to solve the problem is to end the practice of making one's final pass >by silently picking up the bidding cards or by writing the contract on >one's score card. If this were widely considered unacceptable, this >incident could never have happened---when declarer picked up his score >card to write the score, everyone else would have pointed out that the >auction wasn't over, and then declarer would have realized the problem >(or if he didn't and passed without thinking, it would be >unambiguously his fault). Since it's considered acceptable, however, >there's no way to tell whether declarer intended to pass or thought >the auction was over, and nobody---neither declarer nor any of his >three opponents---would have any particular reason to inquire to make >sure declarer knew the auction was over. Who considers it acceptable? I don't. Are you suggesting that a player who always follows the regs should be penalised because others don't? >So the only options seem to be to find a way to blame it on declarer >(not totally unreasonable, since he should have been able to >distinguish a double card from a pass card), or to find a way to get >everyone to stop this practice. This last is not necessarily easy; it >involves not just passing a regulation (the easy part), but getting >everyone to follow it and to remind their partners and opponents to >follow it, and IMHO this last is made harder by the fact that the >problem it's intended to solve happens very infrequently, and it seems >to me that people are going to be less motivated to change a habitual >practice (which requires an extra arm movement) if the reason for the >change is obscure to them, and that bridge organizations are similarly >less motivated to make a point of reminding everyone about the new >regulation. Maybe that's why so many are choosing the first option. May I suggest that we do not rule against people who follow the regs on any basis that suggests they don't? That might be one way to point out the dangers to people. As for getting people to follow the regs, education is always the answer. -- 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 Sat Jul 8 14:44:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA23234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 14:44:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (IDENT:root@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23229 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 14:43:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by precision.math.ntu.edu.tw (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01414; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:41:24 +0800 Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:41:24 +0800 Message-Id: <200007080441.MAA01414@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: btu@moscito.org Subject: 1997 laws, validity thereof Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Sirs [especially those having access to the WBF laws commission] and mesdames: I am asking what kind of jurisdiction does the WBF have to its member NCBO's using the newest laws. Specifically, after WBF's newest laws gets promulgated (in 1987, and 1997 ...) and published, at what time does it take effect in `all' its member NCBO's, or can some NCBOs choose to not accept the `new' laws but to follow the `old'? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 16:54:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:54:42 +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 QAA23470 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:54:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.198] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13AoVK-000PJM-00; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:54:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bfe8a9$ab880b40$c65608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: Usenet Bridge Abbreviations Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:55:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:01 PM Subject: Usenet Bridge Abbreviations > > > Usenet Bridge Abbreviations > > > > ..3H 3H after a hesitation > 3Ha 3H alerted > +=+ Not very skilled at this sort of thing, but maybe to have something for 'not alerted' would be useful. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 17:07:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:07:54 +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 RAA23524 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.13] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Aohk-000PRm-00; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:07:12 +0100 Message-ID: <002101bfe8ab$7628cbe0$c65608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <200007080441.MAA01414@precision.math.ntu.edu.tw> Subject: Re: 1997 laws, validity thereof Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:08:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 5:41 AM Subject: 1997 laws, validity thereof > > Dear Sirs [especially those having access to the WBF laws commission] > and mesdames: I am asking what kind of jurisdiction does the WBF have > to its member NCBO's using the newest laws. Specifically, after WBF's > newest laws gets promulgated (in 1987, and 1997 ...) and published, at > what time does it take effect in `all' its member NCBO's, or can some > NCBOs choose to not accept the `new' laws but to follow the `old'? > +=+ A surprising question. The international laws as agreed between the WBF and the copyright holders are mandatory for all bodies affiliated to the WBF and its Zones. The Bylaws of the WBF also provide that interpretation of those laws is a matter for the Laws Committee of the WBF, subject to the approval of the Executive as the parent body. So the answer is that membership of the WBF leaves an NBO with no choice as to the laws it applies to the game once the Executive has ratified the decisions. Dates for implementation of law changes are settled by the WBF, the practice being to leave it to individual bodies to change on a day they choose within a given period of time, perhaps up to six months. . ~ Grattan Endicott ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 17:40:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23622 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.110] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ApDb-000Pjr-00; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:40:07 +0100 Message-ID: <003201bfe8b0$0f524040$c65608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200007080117.SAA25582@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 08:41:26 +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: Bridge Laws Discussion List Cc: Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 2:17 AM Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) > > I agree with all this. But it appears to me that the Laws' authors > don't (or didn't). I think the Law needs to be changed, and in > particular, I tend to agree that the stuff about "normal" and > "irrational" should be the same for all players (actually, I believe > those two words should be eliminated and replaced with something > else). But I don't think the current Laws support us; nor do I > believe the current Laws can be interpreted to support our ideas about > what the game should be like, without stretching the language further > than it should be. > +=+ I think, and hope, this is a reasonable point of view. It is close to my own. What I know is that when Edgar had, shall I say, 'a strong influence' in the making of the laws, it was difficult for people from the 'Rest of the World' to get in an effective word. If he was determined to get something we got it. He saw the ACBL as the key to lawmaking, I think he genuinely believed only they knew what the game was about (maybe that only *he* knew - since at times it did appear his main objective was to 'fix' his critics and dissenters at home!). He believed this footnote was desirable and he certainly intended players to be treated differently according to their levels of expertise. I think it fair to say that many of us saw no danger in that because we could rely upon our own NBOs to apply the law reasonably. So I do not recall any great argument about this, after all the little ships from Europe had other matters for which they were keeping their powder dry. Let me say there is now a spirit abroad, amongst ACBL representatives as well as others, that is inclined to have a fresh look at everything in the 2002-2005 review of the laws, with some major revisions in places to remove ambiguities, and the tendencies of one individual, and question principles in some areas. If the spirit survives, and we can agree (which is not always an East-West or a North-South problem of hemispheres!) then I think quite a few alterations of substance will emerge. And we are building up quite a catalogue of things to look at, some of them arising from blml evidence of anomaly or conflicts of opinion. Whatever we do, my chief desire is that we should spell out much more plainly exactly what the law intends. It may be that Kaplan's final commentary to his committee on the 1987 changes should have been added as an appendix to the law book - many matters would not have arisen since if that had been done. His illness in 1997 meant he did not produce a similar resume of the changes and the reasons for them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 18:00:27 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA23678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:00:27 +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 SAA23673 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:00:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-149.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-149.interpacket.net [216.252.211.149]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ja131595 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 18:12:58 +1000 Message-ID: <00f601bfe8b1$7dc23c00$95d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 17:52:37 +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 To be sure, it is common practice to pick up your cards as a final Pass. Personally, I do that but I also say aloud "PASS" at the same time. Have never had a problem. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: Sent: 7 July 2000 10:27 Subject: Re: Did anybody double? > David Grabiner wrote: > >No, but I would say that a player picking up his bidding cards > >after two passes is a pass, because this is common practice. > >Many players don't bother to put the third pass down at the end > >of the auction, and it would be unreasonable to rule that the > >auction is not over in such situations. > > > >In the actual situation, if you don't rule that the auction was > >over when declarer picked up his bidding cards, then you > >must rule that declarer misused his bidding cards by picking > >them up in a live auction, and that this misled opening leader. > >Since declarer was primarily at fault for dummy being prematurely > >exposed, he must pay the penalty of an enforced pass. Once he > >has paid this penalty, the premature opening lead must be led > >at the proper time, dummy comes down normally, and declarer > >plays in the doubled contract. > > > I don't like the idea of replaying a hand that's just been played > (see DWS' post at end of my post; 4H went down six). > > > Do you realise that declarer picked up his bidding cards because > he thought that there had already been three passes, thinking that > the auction was over before it reached him? Declarer never made > any attempt to pass. Had he realised that it was his turn to call, he > obviously would not have passed 4H in his void suit. > > As DWS indicated (below), the play of 4H/4HX has been > completed, and a ruling must be made. The contract went > down six, so the possible rulings seem to be: > > (1) 4H -6 or > (2) 4HX -6 or > (3) an adjusted score, under L82B1 and/or L12A2. > > Since three of the players at the table incorrectly assumed that > declarer passed when he made no attempt to do so, I think that > it is reasonable to rule under L82B1 that an error in procedure > has occurred and that an adjusted score should be awarded. > > What adjusted score? Declarer has erred by not seeing his LHO's > call (I wonder if declarer is colour-blind?), and the other three > players > have erred by assuming that a common but unlawful practice of > passing by "picking up one's bidding cards" has occurred. Thus > both sides are at fault. Awarding an artificial score under L12C1 > is right if "owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained". An > irregularity is defined in the FLB as "a deviation from the correct > procedures set forth in the Laws". Thus an irregularity has occurred, > the play should be voided and cannot be replayed. Thus "no result > can be obtained". > > If it's matchpoints it seems that 50% to all is correct ("contestant > only partly at fault" in L12C1) but perhaps 40% to all is possible > (if every "contestant directly at fault"). > > This may seem harsh to the pair that appears to have just obtained > a top, but if I were in either of their seats, I would have asked > "declarer" to call, and he would not then have passed. I think > (only think, mind you) that that would be the correct procedure. > > I assumed in my ruling that the SO has not used L18F to authorise > "picking up the bidding cards" as a Pass. I also assumed that > Bidding Boxes are in use. > > By the way, declarer's self-serving comment that "he had not > seen the double" is, unlike many self-serving comments, clearly > true based on the content of declarer's hand. > > As usual recently , my analysis is different from everyone else's. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > David Stevenson had written: > >> > >> W N E S > >> 1D P 1S P > >> 2C P 4H! X > >> P P > >> > >> 4H was alerted, then South doubled. West and North passed, > >>and East reached for his score card and wrote in it. South led > >>face down, North said "No questions". At about T5 a defender > >>led a trump - and declarer showed out! > > >>4Hx-6 was not a good score at teams. But declarer was > >>horrified! He said that he had not seen the double! Of course, > >>he entered 4H not 4Hx in his score-card. > > >>So what do we do? > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 19:40:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:40:53 +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 TAA23934 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:40:45 +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 13Ar6B-0000eU-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 10:40:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 02:50:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) References: <200007072058.QAA21914@cfa183.harvard.edu> <$FdaFlCxnnZ5EwDT@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$FdaFlCxnnZ5EwDT@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <200007072058.QAA21914@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: Adam Beneschan >>> Right. The addition of those words does clarify the intended meaning >>> of the footnote. Unfortunately, it clarifies it to have a meaning >>> that you don't like. >> >>The meaning is not so clear to everybody, I'm afraid. And I don't >>think it is beneficial to attribute motives to other contributors and >>then criticize the motives you have invented. >> >>Based on Grattan's message, it seems the actual sequence of events was >>that the 1975 Laws suggested that the claimer's ability was NOT to be >>taken into account, and the footnote was added in 1987 in order to say >>that ability SHOULD be considered. OK, fine. That is largely >>consistent with current practice (although maybe not at the YC), and >>isn't obviously unfair. > >Ability is considered at the YC but, as I've posted elsewhere in this >thread, while the goal-posts are movable, I don't think they can be >moved very much. I don't think I rule much different from most EBU TD's >in this respect whether or not it is an EBU or a club event. This >particular law is applied pretty uniformly in the UK, and ability is >taken into account at least to some extent. > >DWS, perhaps you'd care to comment on that. cheers john Well, I find the whole discussion so strange. It just seems so obvious to me, and yes, the EBU takes the ability of the player into account, as the Law requires, and no, not by much. Even if I have not argued it very well, Adam's arguments are so convincing, and Eric's and Steve's so totally unconvincing, it is difficult to know how to progress. I re-read the footnote, and still cannot see how anyone would assume it means you do not take the players' ability into account. -- 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 Sat Jul 8 19:56:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:56:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA23987 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 19:56:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9149 invoked for bounce); 8 Jul 2000 09:55:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.118) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 8 Jul 2000 09:55:55 -0000 Message-ID: <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 11:50:10 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Several sub-threads have evolved fro my first another try, > so I want to try and have yet another go. > > I believe all actions can be divided into a number of > classes. > > I propose to give them names. Don't attack my name-giving, > please. > > 1) "systemics" : actions that are based upon partnership > understanding > 2) "non-systemics" : actions that are not based upon > partnership understanding > > all actions are either systemics or non-systemics. > every action is one or the other. > > 3) "mistakes" : misstatements that have been made > unintentionally > 4) "deviations" : misstatements that have been intentionally > made, but not gross > 5) "psyches" : gross misstatements that have been > intentionally made > > all non-systemics are either mistakes, deviations or > psyches. > every non-systemic is exactly one of the three. [...] > Let's return to L40D. This tells us that (either directly > or indirectly) "understandings" can be regulated. This > applies only to "systemics", because of the use of the same > word as in L40A. [...] > Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always > wanted to have a convention named after me). > > Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. The Herman de Wael opening is, according to your definitions, a systemic (a two-way opening bid, in fact). Even if properly disclosed, it is an *illegal* treatment simply because your partner does consider opening 3rd seat 0-2 HCP hands with 2- hearts with 1H (both of you have to play the same system). We do not have to ban it explicitely, it is illegal. And it can be banned according to L40D, just like KS 'disciplined' psyches. The 'Probst 1NT', however, is a psychic, and I do not think that it can be banned if it is properly disclosed. > What exactly is it that makes the Herman-1-Heart systemic. > It cannot be the knowledge, it cannot be the previous > occurence. it must be something else, if anything. It is systemic because you open a significant fraction of all 'eligible' hands with 1H. I.e., if you hold such a hand your usual partners (and opponents) will assume that you 'open' it 1H rather than pass. > Some people have written arguments stating that the > Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : > 1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- > cards. > I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an > agreement ? You do not have to agree on a bid's meaning to make it systemic. Example: I cannot agree with my lunatic partner on the range of 1NT openers. Are we allowed to play 10-14, where I open 12-14 and he opens 10-12?? NT rebids by opener then will be 10-16, 13-16 by him, 15-16 by me. No, this is not allowed. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 21:00:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:00:53 +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 VAA24247 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 21:00:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma548326 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 20:49:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-224-231.tmns.net.au ([203.54.224.231]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Dynamic-MailRouter V2.9 13/1020518); 08 Jul 2000 20:49:18 Message-ID: <00ef01bfe92e$5e7ed100$c4d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 08:46:34 +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 >David Stevenson wrote: > May I suggest that we do not rule against people who follow >the regs on any basis that suggests they don't? That might be >one way to point out the dangers to people. Had "declarer" been in Sydney, then he didn't quite follow the local regs..... Regulation 6.1.10 at www.nswba.com.au/member/nswtregs.doc states: "declarer should now specify the final contract (including any double(X).....) by placing the appropriate bidding cards in the centre of the table." So when the bidding sort-of-almost-finished, had declarer put *4H without the double* in the centre of the table, the problem would have been solved in a timely manner. Is this local regulation widespread? In Sydney, some players think that it is a waste of time and don't do it (the reg only says "should"). Peter Gill Sydney Australia. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 8 23:26:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:26:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24879 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.227] (d18182ae3.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.227]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22587 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 09:24:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00ef01bfe92e$5e7ed100$c4d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <00ef01bfe92e$5e7ed100$c4d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 09:20:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Peter Gill" wrote: >Is this local regulation widespread? In Sydney, some players >think that it is a waste of time and don't do it (the reg only says >"should"). First time I've heard of it, but then I've only played in ACBL and EBU. Shouldn't "should" have the same force in regulation as it does in the laws? ("when a player 'should' do something, failure to do so is an infraction of law".) 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/AwUBOWcr/72UW3au93vOEQLHFQCgluYskWHGcHsm+KG84+mfBfxCLbwAoMHH +mJOT13/MsUIkpzXEJNWKeAS =TipL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 00:00:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:00:35 +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 AAA25063 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:00:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d232.iae.nl [212.61.3.232]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B96520F19 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2000 16:00:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <014a01bfe8e4$ab085220$19033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <20000707170812.79559.qmail@hotmail.com> <3OMpmlATqnZ5Ewi7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 15:55:28 +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 > >>From: David Stevenson > snip > > Yes, I would care as much whatever the form of scoring, because I do > not like a declarer who follows the regs being shafted because others > don't. >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 ~ > I am not convinced. The presumed declarer starts writing instead of paying attention to the bidding procedure. What is he writing? Later it appeared that he was writing the contract according to his view. Maybe he accepted the lead but anyhow he plaid cards. This conduct has at least confused the other players and is not in harmony with L74. Ben From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 08:34:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 08:34:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27182 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 08:34:05 +1000 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Asym-0000Dq-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:41:04 +0100 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:41:04 +0100 Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.4e, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <39671350.3163.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 195.87.67.34 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 IAA27183 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have not really been following this, because I thought we had established a long time ago that: “play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved but not irrational” was strictly ambiguous, but the most likely meaning because of the order of words is (interpretation A): careless for the copi or inferior for the copi but not irrational for anyone Of course, it can also be read as (interpretation B) careless for anyone or inferior for the copi but not irrational for anyone or as (interpretation C): careless for the copi or inferior for the copi but not irrational for the copi No one has suggested that interpretation B should be used, although it would be just as valid (or in my view just as foolish) as interpretation C. Presumably, interpretation B does not fit anyone’s world view of what the Law ought to be, so there is no need to twist the language. However, if anyone gave a ruling on the basis of interpretation B (or C), that ruling could not be called invalid on the grounds that it is a misreading of the Law as it is written. This is a pity, because it means that different people will rule on the same set of facts in different ways. But we are all used to that by now, shameful though it is. The difficulty with this Law runs far deeper than the arguments about punctuation suggest. The simple fact is that the Law does not mean anything, since the words “careless”, “inferior” and “irrational” do not distinguish among methods of play. It is irrational to play carelessly at bridge – no one could find a reason why he should play carelessly. This does not mean that people do not play carelessly, merely that anyone who does play carelessly is at that moment playing without due exercise of reason, irrationally. It is irrational to play in an inferior manner – no one could find a reason why he should play badly. This does not mean that people do not play badly, but anyone who follows a line of play that he knows to be inferior is at that moment playing irrationally. For this reason, the Law is hugely unsatisfactory, and should cease to exist in its present form. Of course, if people had to claim by stating the order in which they would play particular cards, there would be no need for the Law at all. But it has already been established that to make people do that would lead to the end of civilisation as we know it. Moreover, since the Law is not going to cease to exist in its present form, the Lawmakers should decide as a matter of urgency whether they want the Law to mean this: Normal excludes play that would be irrational, but includes play that for the class of player involved would be careless or inferior Or this: For the class of player involved, normal excludes play that would be irrational, but includes play that would be careless or inferior. David Burn London, England (though presently in Antalya, Turkey) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 10:12:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:12:54 +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 KAA27448 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:12:46 +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 13B4i5-000IJN-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:12:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:56:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <00ef01bfe92e$5e7ed100$c4d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > > "Peter Gill" wrote: > >>Is this local regulation widespread? In Sydney, some players >>think that it is a waste of time and don't do it (the reg only says >>"should"). > >First time I've heard of it, but then I've only played in ACBL and EBU. I insist on it when I'm directing spectated events. It is within the scope of the Law too :)) 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 Jul 9 10:52:05 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:52:05 +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 KAA27549 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:51:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-117.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-117.interpacket.net [216.252.211.117]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ka131778 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 11:04:36 +1000 Message-ID: <001301bfe93e$ce5cdde0$75d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00ef01bfe92e$5e7ed100$c4d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:40:44 +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 In standard legal terminology - "may" is discretionary and "shall" or "will" is compulsory. Civil laws never use "should" to prescribe or proscribe a course of action as it is too easy to misinterpret. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 8 July 2000 11:20 Subject: Re: Did anybody double? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > "Peter Gill" wrote: > > >Is this local regulation widespread? In Sydney, some players > >think that it is a waste of time and don't do it (the reg only says > >"should"). > > First time I've heard of it, but then I've only played in ACBL and EBU. > > Shouldn't "should" have the same force in regulation as it does in > the laws? ("when a player 'should' do something, failure to do so is > an infraction of law".) > > 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/AwUBOWcr/72UW3au93vOEQLHFQCgluYskWHGcHsm+KG84+mfBfxCLbwAoMHH > +mJOT13/MsUIkpzXEJNWKeAS > =TipL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 11:30:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 11:30:31 +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 LAA27676 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 11:30:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.20.168]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000709013011.MXIB16423.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 02:30:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bfe946$4a5489a0$a814ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <39671350.3163.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 02:37:47 +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: Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 12:41 PM Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) > I have not really been following this, because I thought we had established a > long time ago that: > > "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved but > not irrational" > > was strictly ambiguous, but the most likely meaning because of the order of > words is (interpretation A): > > careless for the copi or > inferior for the copi but > not irrational for anyone > > Of course, it can also be read as (interpretation B) > > careless for anyone or > inferior for the copi but > not irrational for anyone > > or as (interpretation C): > > careless for the copi or > inferior for the copi but > not irrational for the copi > > No one has suggested that interpretation B should be used, although it would > be just as valid (or in my view just as foolish) as interpretation C. Presumably, > interpretation B does not fit anyone's world view of what the Law ought to be, > so there is no need to twist the language. However, if anyone gave a ruling > on the basis of interpretation B (or C), that ruling could not be called invalid > on the grounds that it is a misreading of the Law as it is written. This is > a pity, because it means that different people will rule on the same set of > facts in different ways. But we are all used to that by now, shameful though > it is. > > The difficulty with this Law runs far deeper than the arguments about punctuation > suggest. The simple fact is that the Law does not mean anything, since the words > "careless", "inferior" and "irrational" do not distinguish among methods of > play. It is irrational to play carelessly at bridge - no one could find a reason > why he should play carelessly. This does not mean that people do not play carelessly, > merely that anyone who does play carelessly is at that moment playing without > due exercise of reason, irrationally. It is irrational to play in an inferior > manner - no one could find a reason why he should play badly. This does not > mean that people do not play badly, but anyone who follows a line of play that > he knows to be inferior is at that moment playing irrationally. > > For this reason, the Law is hugely unsatisfactory, and should cease to exist > in its present form. Of course, if people had to claim by stating the order > in which they would play particular cards, there would be no need for the Law > at all. But it has already been established that to make people do that would > lead to the end of civilisation as we know it. Moreover, since the Law is not > going to cease to exist in its present form, the Lawmakers should decide as > a matter of urgency whether they want the Law to mean this: > > Normal excludes play that would be irrational, but includes play that for the > class of player involved would be careless or inferior > > Or this: > > For the class of player involved, normal excludes play that would be irrational, > but includes play that would be careless or inferior. > I prefer the former, if we have to consider the class of player at all. I far prefer your "any legal play of the cards" if a comprehensive statement of claim is not made. > > David Burn > London, England > (though presently in Antalya, Turkey) > Please give the Welsh Juniors my very best wishes for success. Anne > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 13:22:39 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:24:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27789 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:23:54 +1000 (EST) From: dburn@btinternet.com Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13AsxF-00003p-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:39:29 +0100 Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:39:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Egalitarian (Was: Claim jumping/forgotten winner) X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.4e, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <396712f1.302a.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 195.87.67.34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 08:50 AM 7/6/00, David wrote: > >> I am biased by the fact that the footnote says >> >> "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, >> ``normal'' includes play that would be careless >> or inferior for the class of player involved, >> but not irrational." >> >>and it would say >> >> "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, >> ``normal'' includes play that would be careless >> or inferior for any player, but not irrational." >> >>if that is what it meant. > >And I am similarly biased, by the fact that the footnote says > >> "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, >> ``normal'' includes play that would be careless >> or inferior for the class of player involved, >> but not irrational." > >and it would say > > "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes > play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, > for the class of player involved. > >if that is what it meant. > >> I do not believe that the WBFLC put a footnote in, part of which is to >>be ignored, because some people come up with an interpretation that part >>of it is basically meaningless. > >I do not understand this, as I do not believe that any part of the footnote >is basically meaningless. I believe, as I've already stated, that it >clarifies rather than changes the meaning of the body of the text, but that >hardly makes it meaningless. > >> I object to any suggestion that I am basing my view of what any player >>would or would not do. I am basing my view on the wording of the >>footnote. > >Caught out yet again by my refusal to use smileys! > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 15:19:46 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:19:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from networksgy.com ([208.153.97.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28257 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:19:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from john [208.153.97.74] by networksgy.com (SMTPD32-6.03) id AEB213B402E0; Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:25:22 -0300 Message-ID: <000501bfe95c$e3fdfe40$4a6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor" From: "John A. Mac Gregor" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" Subject: Re: UK UI Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:36:15 -0300 Organization: CACBF Chief Tournament Director MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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: Grattan Endicott To: John Probst ; Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 5:15 AM | > 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 ~ +=+ With (1) the weak player, the most likely interpretation is that they do not have a weak balanced hand. They showed some interest with "is that weak?". Either, they have the spade stack we hope for, or a long suit of their own, or balance of power values. However, their training and/or exposure may have forced them to ask the question. Were correct table procedures followed such as STOPs and ALERTs? If the opponents may not be aware of your special agreements, shouldn't you alert? Do you not take in the experience level of your opponents when deciding what disclosure they need? With (2) the lady international, they have lost their only down side to double - the most likely interpretation is that partner does not have a weak balanced hand. When the opponents create a position where competition may be dangerous, tempo comes under the microscope. Let's say that "80% plus of lady internationalists" would double. 100% with 100% confidence would double if they had the guarantee that pard had something other than balanced junk. This type of situation where the levels of players are different lead me to split scores, according to experience. If the opps slipped up in any way with table procedures and disclosure, they would get the table result. The (1)&(2) would receive a score to educate both players with something like 3/4's of the table result. John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 18:07:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:07:38 +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 SAA28487 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:07:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-127.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.127]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08237 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:07:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3965EA7B.86DD7450@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:34:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> <39647556.BAB96EAC@village.uunet.be> <3965DE2F.BB3D8A58@inter.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > I tried not to be involved before, but only some "dry" remarks...... > > But now - I feel we overjump any reasonable sense of discussion. > There can't be a systemic psyche. If it belongs to the system...no psych. > And if Herman opens 1H with his 2 cards and 5 cats in 7th position more than once > in a year , he MUST : > "either put it in his CC or be kicked out from my club". > > Seriously and respectfully > Dany > Equally seriously, Dany, What do you do if I do put it on my CC ? If Israeli regulations allow this to be put on the CC, and they have a way not to ban this as a light opening, then put me down for IBF membership. The problem is that the BBF did not allow me to put this on my CC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 18:07:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:07:38 +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 SAA28488 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:07:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-127.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.127]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08241 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:07:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3965EC9B.76F4FEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:43:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > I think we should consider the frequency with which the psyche is made on > suitable hands (not the frequency of 1H openers which are psychic). Ie if > all (most) suitable hands are "psyched" then that is strong evidence that > the psyche is systemic. That really does not make sense. One of the problems that have been indicated over the H1H is that partner, when he realises someone has psyched, knows more about the hand than he really should. He knows I am likely to have very few points and short hearts. That knowledge is the same whether or not I always open 1He on suitable hands or only 80% of the time. Of course there is the negative inference that if I do not open in third, I should have more than 2 points; but is that really valuable ? And after all, I might still have 3=4=3=3, which is not really a good psyche IMO. > However this would, IMO, be ameliorated if HdW1H > proponents were to mix other psyches of 1H into their general style. > Such as ? Any other hand I can think of would be a deviation rather than a psyche. Or just a silly bid. > I fully agree that the existence of control bids (such as Drury) would > also make it systemic. > > BTW if your SO regulations state that psych habits should neither be > disclosed on the CC or Alerted then, assuming you disclose in answer to > questions, you *are* disclosing according to regulations - even if it > doesn't feel like it. > I don't think that solves my problem. In the eyes of the TD's who banned me from putting it on my CC, it was the use that was illegal, not the mention of it. I'm still waiting for someone to rule that against me though. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 19:07:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA28595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 19:07:20 +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 TAA28590 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 19:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14706 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 09:05:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.39) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 09:05:25 -0000 Message-ID: <396840C0.57D1FAA9@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 12:07:12 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <20000705171247.11259.qmail@hotmail.com> <39647556.BAB96EAC@village.uunet.be> <3965DE2F.BB3D8A58@inter.net.il> <3965EA7B.86DD7450@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Herman I understand that we agree 100% for the principle. The question (or the problem) you arose is to be discussed under the "Imperial" Laws 40D & 40E. If the BBF has some good-bad ideas , according to these Laws - you must choose : either respect them or try to make the BBF present executives "vanish".....I can help , asking some black angels to help..! The real question is : "will the next smiling executives of BBF change these decisions , chr chr chr chr ?? "..... . By the way - I am not sure that the IBF compelled any black/brown/red/green or any unbelievable or unexacting color conventions for regular club contests. Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > I tried not to be involved before, but only some "dry" remarks...... > > > > But now - I feel we overjump any reasonable sense of discussion. > > There can't be a systemic psyche. If it belongs to the system...no psych. > > And if Herman opens 1H with his 2 cards and 5 cats in 7th position more than once > > in a year , he MUST : > > "either put it in his CC or be kicked out from my club". > > > > Seriously and respectfully > > Dany > > > > Equally seriously, Dany, > > What do you do if I do put it on my CC ? > > If Israeli regulations allow this to be put on the CC, and > they have a way not to ban this as a light opening, then put > me down for IBF membership. > > The problem is that the BBF did not allow me to put this on > my CC. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 20:46:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28886 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.165]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14068 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:46:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 10:40:53 +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: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce > the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never > happened. > Indeed it has not yet happened. So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass (forced). And now the auction is complete, and we need a lead. And there are 10 penalty cards and an exposed dummy. So legally, we now ask declarer to choose from among the cards that leader has already played to choose the one he likes as a lead. Basically, we allow declarer to make as many tricks as he can. 4HX-2 is a likely result of all that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 20:46:28 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28887 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.165]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14072 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:46:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39683C70.F1035B2B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 10:48:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <004b01bfe779$ecf4f9c0$24c1e080@isi.com> <3964D048.5A356CFD@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > I've remembered an auction from an Oxford-Cambridge match. > > Let's say you hold Kx AQJxx AQx Kx. Partner opens 2NT. > > Can we have an opinion on the auction > > 2N 3H (transfer) > 3S 7N > > I liked this auction a lot in 1975. I'm not so sure now. > > cheers John > Well, it stinks. Of course defenders should realise that if responder bids 7NT, his transfer has no meaning at all, and I think they should lead spades. So that part of it is OK. But I'm guessing that responder was catering for a 2NT psyche, in which case he would be playing 3H. I don't like that at all. Even if in this case it was not a psyche, I would make a fielded psyche recording. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 20:46:30 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28889 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.165]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14077 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:46:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39683DC0.25B8876E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 10:54:24 +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: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) References: <00e601bfe85e$8760c860$605408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ I have been led to believe that a basis > for regulations on the subject of psyching is > that to have an understanding that a bid of > a suit may be made on a hand in which the > naming of that suit will not necessarily convey > one of the three meanings excluded in the > definition of 'convention', creates a > convention use of which can be regulated. > Also any understanding as to initial action > on a hand a King or more less than average > may be regulated. In each case the > authority quoted to me was Law 40D. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, please. I suggest you should stop quoting regulations at us. We all know the regulations, or at least think we do. I do not believe that the discussion is still about what the regulations say. Rather about what the word "understanding" means. I believe I do not have an understanding with my partner that my 1He can be psyched. He understands that I may psyche it occasionally, but I do not believe that this is the same thing. This sounds odd, I know. But I am not talking "understanding" in the English sense of the word, but in the Bridge-Laws sense of the word. If the phrase "partnership understanding" includes the knowledge that I may perform a particular psyche, then this is tantamount to banning psyches altogether. IMO. Hence, partnership understanding should not include psyching habits. As long as they are psyches, of course. And that word is what we are trying to define. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 20:46:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28894 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 20:46:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.165]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14081 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 12:46:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:14:53 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > [...] > > Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always > > wanted to have a convention named after me). > > > > Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. > > The Herman de Wael opening is, according > to your definitions, a systemic (a two-way > opening bid, in fact). Even if properly disclosed, > it is an *illegal* treatment > simply because your partner does consider > opening 3rd seat 0-2 HCP hands with 2- hearts with 1H > (both of you have to play the same system). Well, we do. The H1H is not part of my system, as I consider it. > We do not have to ban it explicitely, it is illegal. > > And it can be banned according to L40D, just > like KS 'disciplined' psyches. > > The 'Probst 1NT', however, is a psychic, and I do > not think that it can be banned if it is properly > disclosed. > I fail to see the difference. Oh, yes, you are talking I "always" bid 1He on suitable cards, John only some times. As I said, that is not a good criterium. BTW, I agree that the Probst 1NT, even if considered systemic, cannot be banned in most NCBO's under L40D (it can in Belgium, but that's another matter). > > What exactly is it that makes the Herman-1-Heart systemic. > > > It cannot be the knowledge, it cannot be the previous > > occurence. it must be something else, if anything. > > It is systemic because you open a significant fraction > of all 'eligible' hands with 1H. I.e., if you hold such a hand > your usual partners (and opponents) will assume that > you 'open' it 1H rather than pass. > But of what value is that knowledge ? When I open 1He in third, my partners do not assume it is weak. That is what counts, not the reverse ! And IF they find out that there has been a psyche, and they remember the knowledge that I can produce a particular type of psyche, and act upon that knowledge, then it makes absolutely no difference whether I actually produce the psyche on 100%, 50% or 10% of all suitable hands. Parnter needs to know there has been a psyche before he can assume that it was me who performed it. I believe that is simply "knowledge", and as we have (almost) established, the mere fact of knowledge surrounding psyching tendency and frequency does not render the psyche systemic. You should realise that Belgium is relatively psyche-free. In the Squeeze, the last three psyches were all performed by yours truly, and that is a period of one year. If anyone at a table at which I am playing discovers a book with apparently 60 HCP, they "know" it was me. That is knowledge, not system. > > Some people have written arguments stating that the > > Herman-1-Heart is equivalent to : > > > 1He : (1-2-4) 11+, 5+ cards; (3) 11+, 5+ cards OR 0-2, 2- > > cards. > > > I agree that this is true, but does that constitute an > > agreement ? > > You do not have to agree on a bid's meaning > to make it systemic. > Completely agreed ! But you have used the word "meaning" in there. What does a bid "mean". I claim that a third hand 1He opening by HDW "means" 11+, 5cHe. You claim otherwise. I think the true test is "what does partner assume you hold; what possibilities of your holding does he cater for". > Example: > I cannot agree with my lunatic partner on the range of 1NT > openers. Are we allowed to play 10-14, where I > open 12-14 and he opens 10-12?? NT rebids > by opener then will be 10-16, 13-16 by him, > 15-16 by me. No, this is not allowed. > Well, it seems to me that you have agreed ! To each play your own system. So to each play a different system. Which is probably illegal in Germany. And covering up by putting 10-14 on the CC would not seem advisable. > Thomas -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 23:13:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:13:43 +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 XAA29281 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:13:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 60606 invoked by uid 65534); 9 Jul 2000 13:12:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000709131258.60605.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.12.97] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <00e601bfe85e$8760c860$605408c3@dodona> <39683DC0.25B8876E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 08:14:25 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 3:54 AM Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) | Grattan Endicott wrote: | > | > > | > +=+ I have been led to believe that a basis | > for regulations on the subject of psyching is | > that to have an understanding that a bid of | > a suit may be made on a hand in which the | > naming of that suit will not necessarily convey | > one of the three meanings excluded in the | > definition of 'convention', creates a | > convention use of which can be regulated. | > Also any understanding as to initial action | > on a hand a King or more less than average | > may be regulated. In each case the | > authority quoted to me was Law 40D. | > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ | | Grattan, please. | | I suggest you should stop quoting regulations at us. | We all know the regulations, or at least think we do. | I do not believe that the discussion is still about what the | regulations say Perhaps more frequently than I think I might like, I happen to learn something important from such postings and his commentary. I for one deeply appreciate them. Thanks Grattan. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | Herman DE WAEL | Antwerpen Belgium | http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html | From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 23:21:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29315 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:21:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-020.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.212]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA68553 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 14:20:47 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <016701bfe9a9$76a171e0$d4307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 14:27:38 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: 09 July 2000 12:07 Subject: Re: Did anybody double? >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce >> the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never >> happened. >> > >Indeed it has not yet happened. > >So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass >(forced). > >And now the auction is complete, and we need a lead. And >there are 10 penalty cards and an exposed dummy. > >So legally, we now ask declarer to choose from among the >cards that leader has already played to choose the one he >likes as a lead. > >Basically, we allow declarer to make as many tricks as he >can. > >4HX-2 is a likely result of all that. >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html What a mess! Surely 74B1 is an easier route. 4HX-6. Regards, Fearghal. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 9 23:38:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:38:38 +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 XAA29360 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 36853 invoked for bounce); 9 Jul 2000 13:38:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.2) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 13:38:17 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:39:17 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael went off the road: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > [...] > > > Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always > > > wanted to have a convention named after me). > > > > > > Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. > > > > The Herman de Wael opening is, according > > to your definitions, a systemic (a two-way > > opening bid, in fact). Even if properly disclosed, > > it is an *illegal* treatment > > simply because your partner does consider > > opening 3rd seat 0-2 HCP hands with 2- hearts with 1H > > (both of you have to play the same system). > > Well, we do. The H1H is not part of my system, as I > consider it. It is part of your system. My 2H opener is "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, or NT 25-26". NT 25-26 is much more infrequent than the other three possible hand types, but this does not make my systemic 2H opener "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs" What would you think of a pair playing precision which marked their 1C opener as "17-22", because hands with more than 23 HCP are infrequently? Or an ACOl pair claiming "we do not have a 2C opener as part of our system, nobody ever gets a gameforcing hand"? > What does a bid "mean". > I claim that a third hand 1He opening by HDW "means" 11+, > 5cHe. > You claim otherwise. > I think the true test is "what does partner assume you hold; > what possibilities of your holding does he cater for". If I open a multi 2D, then my partner will assume I have a weak major one-suiter. Nevertheless the meaning of my multi 2D opener is not "weak in one major". Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 05:26:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:26:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from d1o993.telia.com (root@d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00735 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:26:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t6o993p94.telia.com [213.64.28.214]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA08290 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:25:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000f01bfe9eb$3d03aa60$d61c40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: Subject: VB: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 21:18:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA00736 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Richard Willey Till: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Datum: den 6 juli 2000 16:44 Ämne: RE: Systematic psyches (was: Psyches, another try) > >I've never liked the term systemic psyche. For all intents and >purposes, most of these bids are simply multi-way bids that describe >some non-continuous set of hand types. > >To me, the distinquishing feature between a psyche and a systemic bid >is that a psyche is non-deterministic. > >Suppose I am dealt a hand suitable for the weak form of the Herman 1H >opening and there are two passes to me. > >Assume that there is some probability (P) that I will open this hand >1H. >The rest of the time (1-P) I chose to pass. > >It seems clear that if P = 1 (I always open 1H with this hand), then >the Herman 1H opening is simply a two-way opening bid. >It also seems clear that if P is small enough that partner does not >anticipate the weak variant of the hand type, then the 1H opening is >a psyche. > >Is it possible to define the boundary point for parameter P that >defines whether or not a bid is a psyche? > >Richard Herman is right when he in some way claim that the definition of psyche dont fulfill our needs. I dont think the parameter P is able to differ a bid from a psyche. Some bridgeplayer will only psyche when they got "the perfect distribution", so the got a P close to 1. Some us may get a low P value because we dont take a risk when we think we are in a winning position. All this threads confuse me. We all know our long time partners well. Theirs tendency to psyche, theirs kind of psyches, their mood at the moment and when they would like use there fantasy. It's not possible to totally disclose a "meaning" of a bid under the cirucumstances we are competing; and none of us are able to formulate perfect Laws. Who have any problem with H1H? Why? In which way differ H1H to a "proper psyche" for the opponents when it occurs? Of cause it's the same thing for the opponents but maybe not for todays Law (H1H is close to a convention to me). I think we have to distinguish psyches (or what ever we w'd like to call it) from conventions in a better way? /Peter Swensson (BTW I'm from Sweden and have followed your amusing and amazing discussions quite a long time.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 06:17:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA00909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:17:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from d1o993.telia.com (root@d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA00904 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 06:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t6o993p94.telia.com [213.64.28.214]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA09723 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:17:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <002401bfe9f2$73f8b5e0$d61c40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: Subject: SV: Psyches, yet another try Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 22:08:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id GAA00905 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Herman de Wael went off the road: >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > >> > [...] >> > > Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always >> > > wanted to have a convention named after me). >> > > >> > > Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. >> > >> > The Herman de Wael opening is, according >> > to your definitions, a systemic (a two-way >> > opening bid, in fact). Even if properly disclosed, >> > it is an *illegal* treatment >> > simply because your partner does consider >> > opening 3rd seat 0-2 HCP hands with 2- hearts with 1H >> > (both of you have to play the same system). >> >> Well, we do. The H1H is not part of my system, as I >> consider it. > >It is part of your system. > >My 2H opener is >"strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, > or NT 25-26". >NT 25-26 is much more infrequent than the other three >possible hand types, but this does not make >my systemic 2H opener >"strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs" > >What would you think of a pair playing precision which >marked their 1C opener as "17-22", because hands with >more than 23 HCP are infrequently? Or an ACOl pair claiming >"we do not have a 2C opener as part of our >system, nobody ever gets a gameforcing hand"? > > >> What does a bid "mean". >> I claim that a third hand 1He opening by HDW "means" 11+, >> 5cHe. >> You claim otherwise. >> I think the true test is "what does partner assume you hold; >> what possibilities of your holding does he cater for". > > >If I open a multi 2D, then my partner will assume I >have a weak major one-suiter. Nevertheless >the meaning of my multi 2D opener is not >"weak in one major". > > >Thomas > > Not the same thing. You are able to show the infrequent possibilities, as I understand Herman he is not. Can anything be a part of a system if you can't contiune the bidding using the toolsbox in your system? You have to include it to the system if you claim that it's a part of the system. Is this weird addition to 1Sp part of the system? Non forcing 1Sp opening towards all 0-8 holdings and shows 11-15 5+Sp or any 26+. Well, if you can't take the possibility into account then it don't excist in some way. H1H is closer to non-excisting than this example. If Hermans partners alwaws bid their own four card suit instead of support bid after for instans p-p-1H-X; ? than they will have problem. (It isn't possible) /Peter Swensson From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 15:37:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:37:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc [150.203.35.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02280 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:37:29 +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 e6A5bQK07150 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:37:26 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:37:25 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: The Sydney Way Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here are a few bidding problems. Have a think about your answer before > reading the correct answer beneath. > > >HAND 1. IMPs, Dlr North, Vul All. > >865 >A83 >Q105 >J864 > >N E S W >1D Dbl 1NT 2H >5C 5S ? > >Bid: Slow Pass > >Partner knows I have minor suit length and a balanced-ish hand, so a slow >pass will show my uncertainty as to whether to hit this or dive. If partner >doubles slowly, I will bid 1 more. > >HAND 2. IMPs, Dlr West, Vul EW. > >AKQ874 >8 >QJ3 >K86 > >N E S W > 1H >2S* 4H 4S 4NT** >Pass 5D 5S Pass >Pass 6H ? > >Bid: 6S > >The most common choice here is usually double, on the basis that the Appeals >Committee will let you bid 6S later on if you should have. However I'm not >so sure that this is always the right approach - clearly the decision here >is to double or bid 6S, but the most important thing to do here is maximise >your chances at the Appeals Committee. > >If we get it right, then no problem. The problem is how do we argue (in the >Appeals Committee) when we double but should have bid on, or the reverse >situation when we bid on but should have doubled. > >If we double, we are virtually arguing that we assumed 4NT was something >unusual and not really looking for slam, or RHO has psyched, or tried to >bluff us somehow. Appeals Committees do not like this one, and usually >assume that we are trying it on. > >However, if we bid on but should have hit 6H, it is much easier to argue >that _had we known_ that 4NT was some sort of serious slam try, then we >would clearly have not bid on because we have defensive cards and are >concerned that 6S would be a phantom. > >The general tip here is that Appeals Committees have woken up to the two >bites at the cherry double, so now we must take the two bites sacrifice > >HAND 3. Pairs, Dlr East, Vul NS > >--- >AKJ8763 >AK6 >KQ10 > >N E S W > 2C* 2S >Pass 3S 4H 4S >Pass Pass ? > >* GF or balanced near GF. > >How can we answer this without knowing the fundamental issue - how slow was >partner's pass. If partner passed slowly, as he should do with some spades, >it is right to double as we have good defense and could well get 800 or more >against at best game (especially when declarer mispicks the trumps after our >GF opening and double!). But if partner passed in tempo it looks right to go >on - if partner has xx hearts and CJ 650 just needs trumps 2-2 or stiff Q, >or partner to have something working, which is likely if he has no wasted S >length. Also, if partner has no spades, then 4S might even make (on a bad >day - one opponent with H void, and we only get two D's and one club) > > >HAND 4. Pairs, Dlr South, Vul Nil. > >8 >76543 >AQ6 >K876 > >N E S W > 1S* >Pass Pass ? > >Clearly partner has some values - the question is how do we best take >advantage of them. The critical question has again been unanswered - we >don't know partner's reaction after the 1S bid. > >If partner asked how many spades the 1S bid showed, showing a penalty >double, the t/o double is automatic. > >It is trickier if partner merely asked what system the opponent's are >playing, usually showing a weak NT or similar. In this situation, we should >bid something, but it is not clear what. A double should have some spade >cards, usually xxx or Hx, allowing partner to leave it in with a mediocre >trump holding (asking about spades first and then doubling should show quite >good spades, allowing partner to leave it in with most weak no-trumps). A >convention I like in this situation is to bid an insufficient 1C, showing >clubs and another suit (obviously with just clubs there is no need to make >an insufficient bid). You invariably have to make it good, bidding 2C >without further penalty, and partner can now bid 2D if he wishes to find out >your other suit. Without that possibility, I would ask how many spades the >1S bid showed and then bid 1NT, showing 3 suits with no spade stopper. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 19:38:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:38:22 +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 TAA02751 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:38:13 +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 LAA24434; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:37:05 +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 LAA03033; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:37:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000710114619.0085ea40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:46:19 +0200 To: Anton Witzen , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20000706164335.00f5cc30@mail.a2000.nl> References: <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:43 6/07/00 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: >> >Our PK (the highest protest authoroty in holland) has established that >taking away the bidding card, tapping on them or in any other way >indicating a pass, without actually taking the card out of the biddingbox >IS in fact treated as a pass. So who am i to act against them??? >Anyway, at least in holland - at all levels - it is considered to bo nromal >indicating a pass by above mentioned methods. I doubt that when one realy >insists on putting a pass card by last plaer on the table you cat more than >a - come on dont be a lawyer - >regards, >anton OK, I can live with this one. But problems might nevertheless arise : This is from real life ; West deals ans opens 1S ; 1S p 2NT* 3H 4NT p 5D p 5S p (1) * Jacoby raise (1) at this opint, South takes his cards back. Is he deemed to have passed ? If he did, this is a pass out of turn. The consequences might be harsh. If you say him he has passed out of turn, surely he'll say 'But I didn't pass', and who do you thnik will look like the big, bad lawyer ? Alain From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 19:51:17 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:51:17 +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 TAA02799 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:51:08 +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 LAA25810; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:50:03 +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 LAA09748; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:50:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000710115918.00871e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:59:18 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: Separate In-Reply-To: <20000705212112.91047.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:21 5/07/00 PDT, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > The regulation is that when Bob sits in 1st seat, he must play the same >card that his partner Joe plays in 1st seat. Same for any other seat. I >don't see the fundamental difference between "either in 1st seat playing a >strong club/weak no-trump and either in 3rd seat non-forcing club/strong >no-trump" and "Bob in any seat playing a strong club and Joe in any seat >playing a non-forcing club." I'm wondering why the regulation bans one and >not the other. AG : the rationale I've ever heard about this one is that it would be too esay for a pair composed of players of different skill levels with the dummy to place the contract in the 'right' hand. e.g. The strong player plays 5-card majors, weak NT, and 1C as 1-round force with transfer responses, the weak one plays 1D and 1H as transfers for 5-card majors, 1S to show a balanced 12-14, and 1C as 1-round force with natural responses. MCP's would add that it would make mixed bridge quite dull. Alain. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 20:06:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:06:10 +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 UAA02859 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:06:02 +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 MAA27091; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:06:21 +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 MAA17756; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:05:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000710121412.0086a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:14:12 +0200 To: "John Probst" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Separate CC's In-Reply-To: References: <20000705171841.49903.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:55 6/07/00 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >This regulation is well understood and respected in the UK. I've >discussed this with DWS once or twice and Maxine and I have recently >taken to playing 5-card major weak NT (11-13). In third and fourth we >play 14-16 NT. This part is fine. We also tactically open a lot of >weak flattish 4 card majors in third or fourth, intending to pass >partners response. > >We have one convention card which looks like this: > >1C better minor, usually 4 in 3rd/4th if 11-13 >1H 5cM, frequently 4 in 3rd and 4th > >1N 11-13 1/2 > 14-16 3/4 > >Is this a "treatment" in which case it's ok, or is it a system in which >case it's not? ... and where is the line drawn? cheers John AG : In Belgium, it would be considered as perfectly legal to have different opening requirements according to seats and vulnerabilities, as long as they fit within the prescribed space on the CC (seems OK with yours) and as long as pre-alert is made about 'special' things, like very different NT ranges. By the way, there are cases where *everyone* plays different conventions in different seats. Example : if you open weak 2-bids, you aren't expected to have the same ranges for 2-bids in 4th seat (who would open them with less than 9-10 HCP ?). So it is really a matter of complexity level. I think even playing 1C as forcing in 1st and 2nd seat only would be perfectly legal by us. Also, there are some pars in Brussels who play TWO-WAY 2-bids (natural strong or transfer weak) but only in 1st and 2nd seat. To my knowledge, this hasn't been disallowed in any tournament where TWO-WAY was tolerated (that is, most of them). A. >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 20:10:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:10:19 +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 UAA02887 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:10:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.215]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03286 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:30:24 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > And IF they find out that there has been a psyche, and they > remember the knowledge that I can produce a particular type > of psyche, and act upon that knowledge, then it makes > absolutely no difference whether I actually produce the > psyche on 100%, 50% or 10% of all suitable hands. I just realise there is another argument against the 100% psyching on suitable hands-rule. If I am honest, then I will admit that I have also already psyched once on a 5 count. Thus, you could describe my psyche as 0-5. However, then I psyche only on 40% of suitable (0-5) hands. OTOH, I will psyche on absolutely every 0HCP hand that they leave me in third position. Similarly, John, who says he psyches his 1NT overcall on 10% of 6-card hearts weak hands, will probably admit that he would do it on 100% of all 8-card heart holdings (or something like that). Thus, a psyching habit can NEVER be well described like that. This argument is invalid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 21:12:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:26 +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 VAA03099 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.160]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09789 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:02:10 +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, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another answer to the same post : Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Herman de Wael went off the road: > > It is part of your system. > > > Thomas Why are you picking on me ? Not just you, Thomas, but others as well. I am the honest one here. I am disclosing my habits. The last time I was in a position to open a H1H, I really should not have. I had 3HCP and was red vs green. I promptly received my -500. At the exact next table, there was another lunatic. He did the same thing and we shared the bottom. Do you really want to rule differently against us, when I say that I've done this before, and he keeps that fact under the cover. I don't for a moment believe that he has never done this. So where's the difference ? That my partner knows I am able to do this ? I'm not certain his isn't either, and I don't want to have to trust them on that. That my partner acted differently ? Well, she didn't ! That we told our opponents. Yes, that is a difference. What I did not tell you was that we did not play the same contract. My opponents knew me and played me -2 in 2He doubled. At the next table the contract was 4HeX, also 2 down. (Oh and I don't mean to say that my partner catered for it - at my table I was overcalled by a strong 1NT - at the next it was a double) Look, the mere fact that I disclose a psyching tendency is NOT evidence of it being systemic. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 21:12:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:25 +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 VAA03098 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.160]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09773 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:12:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:42:08 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Herman de Wael went off the road: > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always > > > > wanted to have a convention named after me). > > > > > > > > Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. > > > > > > The Herman de Wael opening is, according > > > to your definitions, a systemic (a two-way > > > opening bid, in fact). Even if properly disclosed, > > > it is an *illegal* treatment > > > simply because your partner does consider > > > opening 3rd seat 0-2 HCP hands with 2- hearts with 1H > > > (both of you have to play the same system). > > > > Well, we do. The H1H is not part of my system, as I > > consider it. > > It is part of your system. > > My 2H opener is > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, > or NT 25-26". > NT 25-26 is much more infrequent than the other three > possible hand types, but this does not make > my systemic 2H opener > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs" > > What would you think of a pair playing precision which > marked their 1C opener as "17-22", because hands with > more than 23 HCP are infrequently? Or an ACOl pair claiming > "we do not have a 2C opener as part of our > system, nobody ever gets a gameforcing hand"? > > > What does a bid "mean". > > I claim that a third hand 1He opening by HDW "means" 11+, > > 5cHe. > > You claim otherwise. > > I think the true test is "what does partner assume you hold; > > what possibilities of your holding does he cater for". > > If I open a multi 2D, then my partner will assume I > have a weak major one-suiter. Nevertheless > the meaning of my multi 2D opener is not > "weak in one major". > > Thomas Hi Thomas. All your examples are well noted. And correct. But they all have one thing in common. There is a way, in the second round, of showing those possibilities. Partner's first bid will, in all your cases, cater for the various possibilities. For example : > My 2H opener is > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, > or NT 25-26". presumably partner is NOT, EVER, allowed to pass. If your system were actually > My 2H opener is > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, you could play it as non-forcing. But if you played it as forcing, and then opened it on 26 balanced, you could not state that this was not part of your system. Do you understand the difference ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 10 21:12:34 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:34 +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 VAA03111 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-160.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.160]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09801 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:12:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3969AE59.8C8B6804@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:07:05 +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: The Sydney Way References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > > > Here are a few bidding problems. Have a think about your answer before > > reading the correct answer beneath. > > > > I hope the original writer intended this as a joke. Otherwise, you don't really need our approval before embarking on a tar and feathers approach to this fella, do you ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 00:57:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:57:02 +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 AAA03762 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28963 invoked for bounce); 10 Jul 2000 14:56:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.206) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 14:56:39 -0000 Message-ID: <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:49:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > Herman de Wael went off the road: > > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > Some of you want to ban the "Herman-1-Heart" (I've always > > > > > wanted to have a convention named after me). > > > > > > > > > > Please tell me on what ground you would want to ban it. > > > > > > > > The Herman de Wael opening is, according > > > > to your definitions, a systemic (a two-way > > > > opening bid, in fact). Even if properly disclosed, > > > > it is an *illegal* treatment > > > > simply because your partner does consider > > > > opening 3rd seat 0-2 HCP hands with 2- hearts with 1H > > > > (both of you have to play the same system). > > > > > > Well, we do. The H1H is not part of my system, as I > > > consider it. > > > > It is part of your system. > > > > My 2H opener is > > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, > > or NT 25-26". > > NT 25-26 is much more infrequent than the other three > > possible hand types, but this does not make > > my systemic 2H opener > > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs" > > > > What would you think of a pair playing precision which > > marked their 1C opener as "17-22", because hands with > > more than 23 HCP are infrequently? Or an ACOl pair claiming > > "we do not have a 2C opener as part of our > > system, nobody ever gets a gameforcing hand"? > > > > > What does a bid "mean". > > > I claim that a third hand 1He opening by HDW "means" 11+, > > > 5cHe. > > > You claim otherwise. > > > I think the true test is "what does partner assume you hold; > > > what possibilities of your holding does he cater for". > > > > If I open a multi 2D, then my partner will assume I > > have a weak major one-suiter. Nevertheless > > the meaning of my multi 2D opener is not > > "weak in one major". > > > > All your examples are well noted. And correct. > > But they all have one thing in common. > > There is a way, in the second round, of showing those > possibilities. Not always. For example, my 3C opener is "8-11, 6+ clubs, KQxxxx or AJTxxx or better, one side value. Might have a four card major if the major is xxxx" not "8-11, 6+ clubs, KQxxxx or AJTxxx or better, one side value, no four card major." Nevertheless there is no way in our system for partner to check for even as much as three card side majors. You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands - 11+, >5H and - 0-3, <= 2H then a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" whereas b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically is "11+, >5H" I consider this absurd. The systematical meaning of you 1H opener is what hands will be opened with 1H in your system. Whatever follow-up conventions you play is irrelevant. > > My 2H opener is > > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, > > or NT 25-26". > > presumably partner is NOT, EVER, allowed to pass. He has already passed. Good hands to pass the 2H opener are hands with about 10 HCP and long hearts. > If your system were actually > > > My 2H opener is > > "strong two in H, or 8-11, both minors, or 2-7, clubs, > > you could play it as non-forcing. > But if you played it as forcing, and then opened it on 26 > balanced, you could not state that this was not part of your > system. > > Do you understand the difference ? No. I do play the 2H opener as forcing, partner sometimes passes when he thinks pass is his best bid, and both the forcing 2H opener and the unlikely pass of a forcing bid are part of our system. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 00:57:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:57:01 +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 AAA03761 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28980 invoked for bounce); 10 Jul 2000 14:56:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.206) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 14:56:40 -0000 Message-ID: <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:56:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > Herman de Wael went off the road: > > > > It is part of your system. > > > > > > Thomas > > Why are you picking on me ? Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand 1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. You just have an agreement with partner that partner treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > Not just you, Thomas, but others as well. > > I am the honest one here. I am disclosing my habits. Yes, you are disclosing your habits. Disclosure or not, your habitual violations of your stated meaning of your 3rd hand 1He opener have altered the meaning of your 1He opener. >From now on, I'll "habitually" open my 10-12 NT with 12-14 HCP ;-). Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 02:10:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:10:16 +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 CAA04146 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13Bg87-0004x8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:09:59 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000710180341.03651540@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:03:41 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000710114619.0085ea40@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.2.32.20000706164335.00f5cc30@mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <0m8pspAWqfY5EwpQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20000705165338.0106521c@mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:46 AM 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote: >At 16:43 6/07/00 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: >>> >>Our PK (the highest protest authoroty in holland) has established that >>taking away the bidding card, tapping on them or in any other way >>indicating a pass, without actually taking the card out of the biddingbox >>IS in fact treated as a pass. So who am i to act against them??? >>Anyway, at least in holland - at all levels - it is considered to bo nromal >>indicating a pass by above mentioned methods. I doubt that when one realy >>insists on putting a pass card by last plaer on the table you cat more than >>a - come on dont be a lawyer - >>regards, >>anton > >OK, I can live with this one. But problems might nevertheless arise : > >This is from real life ; West deals ans opens 1S ; > > 1S p 2NT* 3H > 4NT p 5D p > 5S p (1) > >* Jacoby raise >(1) at this opint, South takes his cards back. Is he deemed to have passed ? >If he did, this is a pass out of turn. The consequences might be harsh. In the first place, i think he doesnt only intend to pass in this example, but perhaps also wants to tell his PD not to lead H. So i think this action smells like very old fish........ or not?? There are no consequences other than passing i think in this example, so i dont think it is harsh. If >you say him he has passed out of turn, surely he'll say 'But I didn't >pass', and who do you thnik will look like the big, bad lawyer ? well, i dont mind educating players and will learn them to accept the concequence of their action in a most friendly manner :):) And btw the TD is always trhe big bad wolf. regards, anton > > Alain > > > > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 10:13:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:13:29 +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 KAA05372 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:13:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id BAA12338 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:12:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:12 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Systematic psyches (was: 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: <3965EC9B.76F4FEB@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > I think we should consider the frequency with which the psyche is > > made on > > suitable hands (not the frequency of 1H openers which are psychic). > > Ie if > > all (most) suitable hands are "psyched" then that is strong evidence > > that > > the psyche is systemic. > > That really does not make sense. > One of the problems that have been indicated over the H1H is > that partner, when he realises someone has psyched, knows > more about the hand than he really should. He knows I am > likely to have very few points and short hearts. > That knowledge is the same whether or not I always open 1He > on suitable hands or only 80% of the time. Indeed. That was why I wanted to see some "mixing" of alternative psyches. > Of course there is the negative inference that if I do not > open in third, I should have more than 2 points; but is > that really valuable ? Not very. But the fact that a third in hand pass "denies a hand with 0-3HCP and 1-2 hearts" makes the *pass* conventional (and thus regulable) and so makes the 1H effectively subject to regulation > > However this would, IMO, be ameliorated if HdW1H > > proponents were to mix other psyches of 1H into their general style. > > > > Such as ? Any other hand I can think of would be a > deviation rather than a psyche. Or just a silly bid. > Try one heart with KQJTxxxx,xxxx,-,x or x,AJ9xxx,x,QT9x (you may call the latter a deviation but I think it should be classified a psyche). However, although I believe the HdW1H *may* be regulated under L40D I would think it a shame if it was! Tim West-Meads PS Apologies to Probst for not making Sunday's Acol game - Emily and I weren't feeling very well! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 16:13:59 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:13:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06094 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:13:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.128] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13BtIV-0009jC-00; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:13:36 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bfeaff$7aceda80$805908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:06:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 2:39 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try +=+ In England there is something called 'the Orange Book'. Now that the situation in the partnership is published, via the internet, the question is whether what is happening is in breach of any regulation. Do the tournaments observe the regs in the OB? What is it considered they say about it? What kind of example does it provide to the young innocents who meet up with it? The laws do not allow that a player may be 'blind' to his partner's habits. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 16:45:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06183 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:44:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.160] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13BtmV-0009ym-00; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:44:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfeb03$ceec86e0$a05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Thomas Dehn" Subject: Clarification Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:46:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:02:43 +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 LAA10027; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:03:03 +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 LAA26389; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:02:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000711111053.00867540@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:10:53 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: The Sydney Way In-Reply-To: <3969AE59.8C8B6804@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:07 10/07/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Mark Abraham wrote: >> >> > Here are a few bidding problems. Have a think about your answer before >> > reading the correct answer beneath. >> > >> > > >I hope the original writer intended this as a joke. > >Otherwise, you don't really need our approval before >embarking on a tar and feathers approach to this fella, do >you ? > Yes, these bidding problems have their :-)'s and :-]'s painted all over the face. I think Mark has some specific Sydney player in mind, and hopes we make some well chosen comments, so that he can transmit them to the interested party. Who wants to cast the first stone ? Alain. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 19:11:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:11:43 +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 TAA06561 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:11:35 +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 LAA11450; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:11:55 +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 LAA29694; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:11:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000711111945.00856de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:19:45 +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 once again, I would like to hear (er, read) your comments on a problem that arose yesterday in a pairs tournament. All players involved are reasonably competent ; N/S are an established partnership ; E/W are frequent teammates and share a common partner, but play only in their 3rd or 4th session together. East / none xx 9xx AKQ10xx xx AKQxx x --- KQJxxx 9 Jxxx KQJ9xx xx J109xx A10xx x A10x East South West North 2H(1) pass 3C (2) 3D pass 3NT double pass pass pass (1) classical weak 2 (2) alerted, asked, then explained as 'not forcing, but not weak' 3NT went down 3. Now it transpires that 3C was intended as forcing. E/W produce no convention card. South calls for the director, and explains that, had he known 3C was a strong and forcing bid, he wouldn't have taken the risk of bidding 3NT. How do you rule ? A. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 21:56:02 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA07137 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13BydU-0009Vm-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:55:39 +0100 Message-ID: <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:56:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39683A95.F89180@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: >> >> >> OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce >> the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never >> happened. >> > >Indeed it has not yet happened. > >So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass >(forced). Excuse me, if I am declarer, and you tell me to make a call, there is *no way* that I am passing. Tell me, Herman, where in your Law book does it give the TD the right to tell a player what call he must make? Ok, where it says a player must pass throughout, of course. Which one of those Laws are you applying here? >And now the auction is complete, and we need a lead. And >there are 10 penalty cards and an exposed dummy. 26 penalty cards. >So legally, we now ask declarer to choose from among the >cards that leader has already played to choose the one he >likes as a lead. > >Basically, we allow declarer to make as many tricks as he >can. > >4HX-2 is a likely result of all that. -- 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 Tue Jul 11 23:53:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:53:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07644 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19167 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:09:47 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > Why are you picking on me ? > > Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand > 1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. > You just have an agreement with partner that partner > treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > No. What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? If everything that you do is considered systemic, then there can be no such thing as a psyche. Then we can simply write L40D as : it is forbidden to open on less than ... The Laws are not written this way, and so it is incorrect to interpret them as if they were. > > Not just you, Thomas, but others as well. > > > > I am the honest one here. I am disclosing my habits. > > Yes, you are disclosing your habits. Disclosure or not, > your habitual violations of your stated meaning of > your 3rd hand 1He opener have altered the > meaning of your 1He opener. > > >From now on, I'll "habitually" open my 10-12 NT > with 12-14 HCP ;-). > Well, if partner continues to pass with 12 HCP, you'll be certain to have a great result. As long as he does, your system can remain as 10-12. As soon as he starts altering his replies, your system has changed. > Thomas -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 23:53:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:53:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07645 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:53:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19179 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:53:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396AF398.A8F4C7B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:14:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <002601bfeaff$7aceda80$805908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > The laws do not allow that a > player may be 'blind' to his partner's > habits. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Actually, Grattan, you will notice that the Laws even oblige a player to be blind to his partner's habits. Or have you forgotten L16 ? The same is true about the H1H. As soon as my partner starts catering for the possibility, there can be question of "system". So far, none of my partners have ever bid as if there has been anything wrong. You all seem to think that this is something that I let my partners into. You all have far more knowledge about the H1H than any of my partners. Even those that have experienced it more than once. I am trying, very hard, to get to completer disclosure. I want my opponents to know MORE than my partner. And you are punishing me by not allowing me to psyche ? While at the next table someone produces the exact same psyche, and without any evidence as to whether he has done the same thing before, he is allowed to do it while I am not ? Really guys, go back into your corner and think this through. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 11 23:53:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:53:56 +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 XAA07643 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19156 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:53:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:06:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands > - 11+, >5H > and > - 0-3, <= 2H > then > a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is > "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" > whereas > b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically > is "11+, >5H" > I consider this absurd. The systematical meaning of you > 1H opener is what hands will be opened with 1H > in your system. Whatever follow-up conventions you > play is irrelevant. > You said it yourself : > in your system. The fact that I have opened in the past, and may well do so in the future, 1 Heart, does not make that "in the system". The mere fact of it happening does not put it in the system. There must be something else. I have not yet made up my mind whethet the H1H is sytemic, but I am beginning to suspect that it is. So far, no-one has been able to point out anything that would make it systemic, except for the fact that I have done it. I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough to make it systemic. Sorry about that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 00:56:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from magnolia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07963 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:56:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by magnolia.wanadoo.fr; 11 Jul 2000 16:56:15 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.107.55) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 11 Jul 2000 16:56:12 +0200 Message-ID: <003c01bfeb48$9bf8a6c0$376bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Tr: Did anybody double? Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:59:26 +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: David Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 4:46 PM Subject: Re: Did anybody double? > > > > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce > > >> the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never > > >> happened. > > >> > > > > > >Indeed it has not yet happened. > > > > > >So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass > > >(forced). > > > > Excuse me, if I am declarer, and you tell me to make a call, there is > > *no way* that I am passing. Tell me, Herman, where in your Law book > > does it give the TD the right to tell a player what call he must make? > > Ok, where it says a player must pass throughout, of course. Which one > > of those Laws are you applying here? > > IMO he is applying Law 24C. Presumed dummy is exposed during what you think > is still bidding period and partner has to bid. According to 24C, Presumed > declarer is compeled to pass (once). Then bidding is over. At last, for > everybody. > > > > > >And now the auction is complete, and we need a lead. And > > >there are 10 penalty cards and an exposed dummy. > > > > 26 penalty cards. > > > > >So legally, we now ask declarer to choose from among the > > >cards that leader has already played to choose the one he > > >likes as a lead. > > > > > >Basically, we allow declarer to make as many tricks as he > > >can. > > > > > >4HX-2 is a likely result of all that. > > > > -- > > 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 Wed Jul 12 02:36:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:36:35 +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 CAA08636 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:36:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12646; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:32:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200007111632.JAA12646@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:44:31 PDT." <2OTpWeAvlnZ5EwCM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:32:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> I am surprised at the lack of sympathy for declarer in this thread. > >> Everyone assumes that he does not follow the regs. Well, if he doesn't, > >> then he gets what he gets, but what of a player who never passes in any > >> other way but showing a pass card? He has not passed here by the > >> regulations: why should we assume he has passed? > > > >Possibly, the lack of sympathy is due to the fact that the *only* way > >to solve the problem is to end the practice of making one's final pass > >by silently picking up the bidding cards or by writing the contract on > >one's score card. If this were widely considered unacceptable, this > >incident could never have happened---when declarer picked up his score > >card to write the score, everyone else would have pointed out that the > >auction wasn't over, and then declarer would have realized the problem > >(or if he didn't and passed without thinking, it would be > >unambiguously his fault). Since it's considered acceptable, however, > >there's no way to tell whether declarer intended to pass or thought > >the auction was over, and nobody---neither declarer nor any of his > >three opponents---would have any particular reason to inquire to make > >sure declarer knew the auction was over. > > Who considers it acceptable? I don't. Where I play, the practice appears to be widespread. Perhaps where you play, or perhaps in areas where your views carry a lot of weight, it's considered unacceptable; but that's not the case where I play, and from this thread, it appears not to be the case in a lot of other players. To eliminate the problem, the practice of picking up one's bidding cards to make a final pass would have to be unacceptable to a majority of players; it wouldn't help for just one or two people to consider it unacceptable. > Are you suggesting that a > player who always follows the regs should be penalised because others > don't? I really wasn't suggesting anything, merely trying to analyze what seems to be a thorny problem. I certainly don't think a player following the regulations should be penalized because many do not, but it seems to me that as long as this practice is considered acceptable, there simply is no solution. What I did try to suggest is that maybe this is why some people are unsympathetic to the declarer: it's the only way to avoid being caught between a rock and a hard place. Part of the thorniness is that the only time failure to follow correct procedure causes a problem is when someone is genuinely confused and shouldn't be penalized (e.g. the declarer in our example). When someone does violate the rules, it generally will not cause a problem, and the director won't know anything about it. This makes enforcing correct procedure tough. One thought: Make it a violation of regulations to pick up one's bidding cards to end the auction, but also make everyone at the table responsible for correct procedure. Thus, if someone picks up their bidding cards before the auction is over, the other three players would be violating regulations if they did not try to stop him, and everybody could potentially get a PP. This would partially solve the original problem; the player who didn't see the double would think the auction was over and try to pick up his bidding cards, but everyone else would know the auction wasn't over, and they'd have to let him know or else risk a penalty. Probably, no PP's would actually have to be handed out---just one warning should be enough to educate everyone. But this kind of threat would motivate players to learn and follow the regulation, probably moreso than just an attempt at "education" that not everybody will read or pay attention to. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 02:57:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f142.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.142]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA08733 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:56:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8325 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jul 2000 16:56:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20000711165618.8324.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.21 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:56:18 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:56:18 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Why are you picking on me ? > > > > Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand > > 1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. > > You just have an agreement with partner that partner > > treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > >No. > >What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? Let's say I open 1NT with 10-12 pts and partner makes game invitational bids with 8 or more pts. Is partner treating my bid as if I have 15-17 pts or have we really just decided to play a 'losing' system. The law is not designed to make this sort of judgement call, I don't think that it should be, and I don't think that it objectively can. >If everything that you do is considered systemic, then there >can be no such thing as a psyche. Then we can simply write >L40D as : it is forbidden to open on less than ... The Laws >are not written this way, and so it is incorrect to >interpret them as if they were. Not everything. I think that psyches are characterized by infrequency and unpredictable meaning. The H1H does not sound particularly infrequent and your hand is nailed when the psyche is exposed. You're handing your partner a non-trivial UI problem everytime your 1H opening becomes exposed. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 03:04:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:04:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA08811 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:04:17 +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 NAA20086 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA02417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:03:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007111703.NAA02417@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Did anybody double? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > To eliminate the problem, the practice of picking up one's > bidding cards to make a final pass would have to be unacceptable to a > majority of players; it wouldn't help for just one or two people to > consider it unacceptable. I'm not so sure. When I partner someone like David, who follows correct procedure in this matter -- and there are a number of players like that -- I'd notice if he were to pick up his bidding cards without putting down a final pass. If he did that, I'd ask whether he intended to pass. Given that the declarer's partner didn't ask, I don't see how to rule other than under L21A. There are procedures in the rules that let partnerships, if not always individual players, protect themselves, and if they don't use those procedures, that's their own fault. An analogy might be declarer's revoke (or defender's in North America). Partner could have asked "having none." If he neglects to do so, then the the revoke may become established, and the penalties follow. So in this case, I don't have any problem ruling 'score stands'. David and his partner won't be in this position unless both of them are asleep. Now if there were evidence that the opponents had done something wrong -- say West hid his double card under his coffee cup -- that would be another story entirely. But if East and West have followed proper procedures, I don't see any reason to take their good score away. > One thought: Make it a violation of regulations to pick up one's > bidding cards to end the auction, but also make everyone at the table > responsible for correct procedure. Yes, this would be a good approach if there is a serious problem. If this regulation had been in effect, I'd have no trouble ruling avg- all around, maybe with a PP as well. As Peter(?) said, the violation of procedure has made it impossible to obtain a result. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 03:23:11 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA08866 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:22:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11617 invoked for bounce); 11 Jul 2000 17:22:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.189) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 17:22:09 -0000 Message-ID: <000701bfeb5c$b8c378c0$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:23:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > Why are you picking on me ? > > > > Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand > > 1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. > > You just have an agreement with partner that partner > > treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > > No. > > What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? "The following hands will be opened with 1H: ..." That's your system with respect to your 1H opener. "Partner's will respond to 1H as follows: ..." That's your system with respect to partner's responses. I can agree that 1NT shows 10-12, and partner nevertheless has to raise to 3NT on any flat 12 count. The agreement on partner's responses does not change the 1NT opener into a 12-14. > If everything that you do is considered systemic, then there > can be no such thing as a psyche. A psyche is a gross deviation from your system. Your system consists of your explicit and implicit agreements. Your reproducible actions do form implicit agreements, habitual psyches become part of your system (see also L75B). Random psyches are not part of your system > Then we can simply write > L40D as : it is forbidden to open on less than ... The Laws > are not written this way, and so it is incorrect to > interpret them as if they were. It is not forbidden to psyche a 1H opener in 3rd seat. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 03:48:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f227.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.227]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA08947 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:48:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 38943 invoked by uid 0); 11 Jul 2000 17:48:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:48:01 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:48:01 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > The laws do not allow that a > > player may be 'blind' to his partner's > > habits. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Actually, Grattan, you will notice that the Laws even oblige >a player to be blind to his partner's habits. > >Or have you forgotten L16 ? No. L16 requires you to be wide awake and shoot yourself in the foot if necessary so that you can save the TD from that hassle. Bonus ethics points if shooting yourself was unnecessary. >The same is true about the H1H. As soon as my partner >starts catering for the possibility, there can be question >of "system". So far, none of my partners have ever bid as >if there has been anything wrong. I got chastised once about takeout doubles. In both situations the bidding had gone P-1 Platypus-X. In both cases I held 4441 hands with the singleton in the bid suit and 0-1 pts. I thought it was a safe bid since I intended to pass my hand for the rest of the auction. My partner didn't have to bid as if anything were wrong or not, the auction was safe from disaster. Could I do this if we alerted it and put it on the CC? Personally, I'd love to open 1H/1S in 3rd seat with 0-5 or 12+ HCP and >=5c and have my partner give all the normal/systematic responses. I think that such a preemptive measure would be a winning bid, though I'm probably wrong about that too. Because the situations above can happen and the law can't and shouldn't have to tell the difference between safe and gambling systems, there're different criteria for whether or not a psychic bid can be made. Inability or refusal to field a psyche is not enough to keep it legal as the inability or refusal to field a psyche could be the point of your system, whether or not it actually is. >You all seem to think that this is something that I let my >partners into. You all have far more knowledge about the >H1H than any of my partners. Even those that have >experienced it more than once. Oh, so you are playing a different system than your partner? :) >I am trying, very hard, to get to completer disclosure. I >want my opponents to know MORE than my partner. >And you are punishing me by not allowing me to psyche ? > >While at the next table someone produces the exact same >psyche, and without any evidence as to whether he has done >the same thing before, he is allowed to do it while I am not >? > >Really guys, go back into your corner and think this >through. Brutal paradox. The only players that get caught are those honest enough to turn themselves in. :) Can you find any other laws with this problem? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 04:24:29 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:22:32 +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 DAA08862 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11607 invoked for bounce); 11 Jul 2000 17:22:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.189) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 17:22:08 -0000 Message-ID: <000601bfeb5c$b8572260$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:20:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands > > - 11+, >5H > > and > > - 0-3, <= 2H > > then > > a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is > > "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" > > whereas > > b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically > > is "11+, >5H" > > I consider this absurd. The systematical meaning of you > > 1H opener is what hands will be opened with 1H > > in your system. Whatever follow-up conventions you > > play is irrelevant. > > > > You said it yourself : > > > in your system. > > The fact that I have opened in the past, and may well do so > in the future, 1 Heart, does not make that "in the system". > > The mere fact of it happening does not put it in the system. > There must be something else. > > I have not yet made up my mind whethet the H1H is sytemic, > but I am beginning to suspect that it is. > > So far, no-one has been able to point out anything that > would make it systemic, except for the fact that I have done > it. > > I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough > to make it systemic. Sorry about that. The point is not that you have made this psyche before. This does not make it systemic. The H1H is systemic (and not a psyche) because you 'open' many eligible hands with 1H. Habitual violations of an existing system constitute implicit agreements. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 05:12:21 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 05:12:21 +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 FAA09310 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 05:12:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 68371 invoked for bounce); 11 Jul 2000 19:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.10) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 19:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <009a01bfeb6c$11b47e20$21391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <20000711165618.8324.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:13:00 +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 "Todd Zimnoch" wrote: > >From: Herman De Wael > >Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > Why are you picking on me ? > > > > > > Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand > > > 1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. > > > You just have an agreement with partner that partner > > > treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > > > >No. > > > >What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? > > Let's say I open 1NT with > 10-12 pts and partner makes game invitational > bids with 8 or more pts. Is partner > treating my bid as if I have 15-17 pts > or have we really just decided to play a 'losing' system. The law is not > designed to make this sort of judgement call, I don't think that it should > be, and I don't think that it objectively can. Well, certainly your partner's responses do not make you 1NT opener a 15-17. > >If everything that you do is considered systemic, then there > >can be no such thing as a psyche. Then we can simply write > >L40D as : it is forbidden to open on less than ... The Laws > >are not written this way, and so it is incorrect to > >interpret them as if they were. > > Not everything. I think that > psyches are characterized by infrequency > and unpredictable meaning. > The H1H does not sound particularly infrequent > and your hand is nailed when the psyche is exposed. You're handing your > partner a non-trivial UI problem > everytime your 1H opening becomes exposed. There is no UI if the nature of the H1H is properly disclosed. The subject of this discussion is whether the H1H can be regulated, and under what conditions it is legal. UI is not a part of the picture here, because Herman wants to fully disclose his habits (which allegedly is difficult in Belgium). Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 10:23:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:37 +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 JAA10086 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13C9jt-000COJ-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:47:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:02:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >If I am honest, then I will admit that I have also already >psyched once on a 5 count. Thus, you could describe my >psyche as 0-5. No, your 5-count was a psyche of a psyche. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 10:32:51 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:32:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10215 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:32:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CAS2-0003VN-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:32:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:00:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >Similarly, John, who says he psyches his 1NT overcall on 10% >of 6-card hearts weak hands, will probably admit that he >would do it on 100% of all 8-card heart holdings (or >something like that). Thus, a psyching habit can NEVER be >well described like that. I did this to Wolfarth in 1980 xx AKxxxxxx Ax Q 1N P 2C P 2D P 2N P 6Ha End "hasn't got a 4-card H suit he's almost certainly got 8" said Wolfarth. > >This argument is invalid. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 10:32:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:32:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10219 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:32:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CAS2-0003VO-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:32:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:13:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit>, Thomas Dehn writes > >"Herman De Wael" wrote: >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > >> > Herman de Wael went off the road: >> > >> > It is part of your system. >> > >> > >> > Thomas >> >> Why are you picking on me ? > >Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand >1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. >You just have an agreement with partner that partner >treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > > Come off it Thomas, a 1H opener is treated as 11+ just as your 1NT bid is treated as 15-17. There is *No* difference. The illegal bit is that if Herman passes in third seat his partner should also alert and point out Herman doesn't have 0-2 and 2 hearts. That is regulated and contravenes L40B. OTOH if I pass over one of a minor I might well have 6 hearts and a weak hand, so partner doesn't need to worry. That I think is why Herman is going to have to pass some of the Herman 1H's so his partner doesn't have to alert his 3rd in hand pass, then I think he'll be kosher again. cheers john >> Not just you, Thomas, but others as well. >> >> I am the honest one here. I am disclosing my habits. > >Yes, you are disclosing your habits. Disclosure or not, >your habitual violations of your stated meaning of >your 3rd hand 1He opener have altered the >meaning of your 1He opener. > >From now on, I'll "habitually" open my 10-12 NT >with 12-14 HCP ;-). > > > >Thomas > > > > > > -- 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 Jul 12 11:02:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:02:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10320 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:02:07 +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 13CAuS-0001iZ-0X for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:01:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:56:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >The fact that I have opened in the past, and may well do so >in the future, 1 Heart, does not make that "in the system". > >The mere fact of it happening does not put it in the system. >There must be something else. > >I have not yet made up my mind whethet the H1H is sytemic, >but I am beginning to suspect that it is. > >So far, no-one has been able to point out anything that >would make it systemic, except for the fact that I have done >it. > >I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough >to make it systemic. Sorry about that. > Agreed. But I think if you *always* do it, then it becomes systemic. If you do it some of the time then I think you're still ok. 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 Jul 12 11:16:35 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:16:35 +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 LAA10381 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:16:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA21878; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:12:48 -0700 Message-Id: <200007120112.SAA21878@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:00:47 PDT." Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 18:12:50 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > I did this to Wolfarth in 1980 > > xx AKxxxxxx Ax Q > > 1N P 2C P > 2D P 2N P > 6Ha End "hasn't got a 4-card H suit > he's almost certainly got 8" > said Wolfarth. Perhaps you should have said you thought you were playing Extended Stayman, in which 2D shows two 4-card majors, which is indeed what you have (a four-card heart suit, and another four-card heart suit). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 11:26:10 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:36 +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 JAA10083 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13C9js-000COH-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:47:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:38:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> >>> OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce >>> the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never >>> happened. >>> >> >>Indeed it has not yet happened. >> >>So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass >>(forced). > > Excuse me, if I am declarer, and you tell me to make a call, there is >*no way* that I am passing. Tell me, Herman, where in your Law book >does it give the TD the right to tell a player what call he must make? >Ok, where it says a player must pass throughout, of course. Which one >of those Laws are you applying here? Well, I have been told L24B. Fair enough, that would then enforce a pass. I think I shall now take a couple of days to think about this. As I see it, the main problems are: [1] It is unfair to assume someone has passed if he normally follows the regs. [2] The method of replaying the hand with 26 penalty cards [not 10, as some people have said: since we know the result on the board I take it that it has been played out. -- 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 Wed Jul 12 11:26:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:37 +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 JAA10088 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:21 +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 13C9k0-000COK-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:47:09 +0100 Message-ID: <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:15:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <396AF26B.277A4F13@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: >Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > >> > Why are you picking on me ? >> >> Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand >> 1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. >> You just have an agreement with partner that partner >> treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? >> > >No. > >What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? Hmmm. You open 1H, the oppos reach 3NT, you turn up with the HQ, your partner has a decision to make. He needs to guess whether to play you for the SQ or for at least four clubs. Are you sure that he will play you for the SQ? -- 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 Wed Jul 12 12:26:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA10110 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:39 +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 13C9kB-000COG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:47:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:25:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <3.0.6.32.20000711111945.00856de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000711111945.00856de0@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 once again, > >I would like to hear (er, read) your comments on a problem that arose >yesterday in a pairs tournament. >All players involved are reasonably competent ; N/S are an established >partnership ; E/W are frequent teammates and share a common partner, but >play only in their 3rd or 4th session together. > >East / none > > xx > 9xx > AKQ10xx > xx > > AKQxx x > --- KQJxxx > 9 Jxxx > KQJ9xx xx > > J109xx > A10xx > x > A10x > > East South West North > > 2H(1) pass 3C (2) 3D > pass 3NT double pass > pass pass > >(1) classical weak 2 >(2) alerted, asked, then explained as 'not forcing, but not weak' > >3NT went down 3. > >Now it transpires that 3C was intended as forcing. >E/W produce no convention card. > >South calls for the director, and explains that, had he known 3C was a >strong and forcing bid, he wouldn't have taken the risk of bidding 3NT. > >How do you rule ? 5C-1>W, NS+100, for both sides. No CC might be acceptable with *really* simple methods, but here it just means we rule as MI. South might easily have passed if he knew 3C was forcing, then 3S by W, and so on. -- 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 Wed Jul 12 12:28:24 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:36 +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 JAA10085 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:47:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13C9jt-000COI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:59:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. References: <006201bfdf03$2042ae00$6958fd3e@vnmvhhid> <3.0.6.32.20000626145046.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000626145046.007ad4b0@popmail.tcp.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk M Smith wrote: >At 01:11 26/06/2000 +0100, anne_jones wrote: >>DWS please ignore this for 14 days. I did not read it for 14 days. Now I have, two other people have already asked me about it! >>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. Oh, yeah? Do you really think he was not just confused? >EW should be assessed a procedural penalty equivalent to the number of >matchpoints they scored on this deal. On what basis? That you don't like E/W? We rule with sympathy, not with an attempt to alienate people from the game of bridge. The only thing you know about E/W abilities is that West can possibly think 1C=1H=2N=3C is 5-card Stayman. If N/S are damaged because West used UI then you adjust the score: if they aren't, you don't. Simple. ------ Wayne Burrows wrote: >Why don't EW and NS both deserve a result related to the number of >matchpoints that would have been gained playing/defending 4H? Exactly. ------ John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >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" I think the instinct of any TD is as John says. But I am not sure that this is right. The trouble with poor-ish players [no, I do not know who they were: I am making deductions] is they do silly things. If West bid "5-card Stayman" forgetting that it could not possibly be 5-card Stayman logically, then over 3H he should be bidding 4H - and maybe he did not because of UI. ------ OK, as I said, I have already been asked this twice, and I will tell everyone the opinion I have given twice: you had to be there. On paper, the result stands because there is UI but 4H is not an LA. [I think the MI is a red herring: no-one except West really believed this was 5-card Stayman, did they?]. Both the TD and the AC should have asked West what he was up to try and find out the thought processes [it is OK, Steve, this is Wales, we do not need to worry about players telling us porkies]. Obviously something went wrong somewhere. But if the TD and the AC after probing believe that he *really* used 5-card Stayman then 4H over 3H is an LA, the failure to alert 3C was UI, and the correct ruling was to adjust to 4H-2. -- 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 Wed Jul 12 12:50:07 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:50:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail5.generalbroadband.com (mail5.generalbroadband.com [64.32.62.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10859 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:49:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from relaypoint.net (dsl-64-32-15-25.hollywood.relaypoint.net [64.32.15.25]) by mail5.generalbroadband.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07962; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:49:44 -0700 Message-ID: <396BDA17.4A406B5D@relaypoint.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:38:15 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@relaypoint.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Dehn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <000601bfeb5c$b8572260$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I been following this thread, which I find interesting but I am puzzled by the following: Thomas Dehn seems to say: "You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands - 11+, >5H and - 0-3, <= 2H then a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" whereas b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically is "11+, >5H" I consider this absurd." What on earth does the presence or absence of the Drury convention have to do with the definition of the H1H? It may or may not be considered systemic, but bringing up Drury seems like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing? Irv Kostal Thomas Dehn wrote: > > "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > > You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands > > > - 11+, >5H > > > and > > > - 0-3, <= 2H > > > then > > > a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is > > > "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" > > > whereas > > > b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically > > > is "11+, >5H" > > > I consider this absurd. The systematical meaning of you > > > 1H opener is what hands will be opened with 1H > > > in your system. Whatever follow-up conventions you > > > play is irrelevant. > > > > > > > You said it yourself : > > > > > in your system. > > > > The fact that I have opened in the past, and may well do so > > in the future, 1 Heart, does not make that "in the system". > > > > The mere fact of it happening does not put it in the system. > > There must be something else. > > > > I have not yet made up my mind whethet the H1H is sytemic, > > but I am beginning to suspect that it is. > > > > So far, no-one has been able to point out anything that > > would make it systemic, except for the fact that I have done > > it. > > > > I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough > > to make it systemic. Sorry about that. > > The point is not that you have made this psyche before. > This does not make it systemic. > > The H1H is systemic (and not a psyche) because > you 'open' many eligible hands with 1H. > Habitual violations of an existing system > constitute implicit agreements. > > Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 13:00:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:00:54 +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 NAA10892 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:00:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.230.236] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:00:31 -0300 Date: 11 Jul 2000 23:58:41 -0700 Message-ID: <-1248762578jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: To: , alain gottcheiner X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind 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 NAA10893 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My feeling on this one is to let the North/South result stand. Although they may have been given incorrect information regarding the meaning of the 3C bid, they did know that it showed a good hand.Essentially I feel that North/South have made their own bed here and are not entitled to redress.I would, however, give a PP to East/West for not having a correctly completed CC. regards, Jack Rhind On Tuesday, July 11, 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello once again, > >I would like to hear (er, read) your comments on a problem that arose >yesterday in a pairs tournament. >All players involved are reasonably competent ; N/S are an established >partnership ; E/W are frequent teammates and share a common partner, but >play only in their 3rd or 4th session together. > >East / none > > xx > 9xx > AKQ10xx > xx > > AKQxx x > --- KQJxxx > 9 Jxxx > KQJ9xx xx > > J109xx > A10xx > x > A10x > > East South West North > > 2H(1) pass 3C (2) 3D > pass 3NT double pass > pass pass > >(1) classical weak 2 >(2) alerted, asked, then explained as 'not forcing, but not >weak' > >3NT went down 3. > >Now it transpires that 3C was intended as forcing. >E/W produce no convention card. > >South calls for the director, and explains that, had he known 3C was a >strong and forcing bid, he wouldn't have taken the risk of >bidding 3NT. > >How do you rule ? > > A. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 12 19:30:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:30:40 +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 TAA11790 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:30:31 +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 13CIqT-0000tq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:30:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:34:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tr: Did anybody double? References: <003c01bfeb48$9bf8a6c0$376bfac1@cllubintplord> In-Reply-To: <003c01bfeb48$9bf8a6c0$376bfac1@cllubintplord> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk olivier beauvillain wrote: >> > Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce >> > >> the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never >> > >> happened. >> > >> >> > > >> > >Indeed it has not yet happened. >> > > >> > >So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass >> > >(forced). >> > >> > Excuse me, if I am declarer, and you tell me to make a call, there is >> > *no way* that I am passing. Tell me, Herman, where in your Law book >> > does it give the TD the right to tell a player what call he must make? >> > Ok, where it says a player must pass throughout, of course. Which one >> > of those Laws are you applying here? >> >> IMO he is applying Law 24C. Presumed dummy is exposed during what you >think >> is still bidding period and partner has to bid. According to 24C, Presumed >> declarer is compeled to pass (once). Then bidding is over. At last, for >> everybody. Merci, Oliver, someone has written to me pointing this out. I understand the possibility. I am now going to think this over for a couple of days. -- 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 Wed Jul 12 23:17:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:17:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12590 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:16:57 +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 13CMNT-000GlK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:16:42 +0000 Message-ID: <7KGqHDAxvDb5EwTy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:35:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <39687E70.7B7627C@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >snip >> >>Similarly, John, who says he psyches his 1NT overcall on 10% >>of 6-card hearts weak hands, will probably admit that he >>would do it on 100% of all 8-card heart holdings (or >>something like that). Thus, a psyching habit can NEVER be >>well described like that. > >I did this to Wolfarth in 1980 > >xx AKxxxxxx Ax Q > >1N P 2C P >2D P 2N P >6Ha End "hasn't got a 4-card H suit > he's almost certainly got 8" > said Wolfarth. Huh! Wasting a round of bidding. Jason Hackett opened a strong NT on a slightly stronger hand - but he responded 6H to Stayman! -- 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 Wed Jul 12 23:17:07 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:17:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA12591 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:16:57 +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 13CMNT-000Dn4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:16:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:47:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <-1248762578jrhind@ibl.bm> In-Reply-To: <-1248762578jrhind@ibl.bm> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: >My feeling on this one is to let the North/South result stand. Although they may >have been given incorrect information regarding the meaning of the 3C bid, they >did know that it showed a good hand.Essentially I feel that North/South have >made their own bed here and are not entitled to redress.I would, however, give >a PP to East/West for not having a correctly completed CC. This may be the difference between the approach in North/Central America and the Rest of the World, but it is the type of hand that seems very unfair to me. N/S have done nothing ridiculous: their actions are not irrational, wild or gambling: they have made no egregious error: so how can you not provide redress? You are saying, as I read it, that N/S should not get redress because, despite being in a position they should not be in [being misinformed] they misjudged a hand. Even the ACBL is beginning to move a little back from the edge, and it is time we put this approach to rest. The ACBL have effectively said that NOs must continue to play bridge to be allowed redress. While from their writings it appears they meant that the NOs should do nothing completely stupid [they use the terms "egregious error"] they have been mis-interpreted to mean much more, and some TDs and ACs seem to be unwilling to allow redress unless the NOs have played perfectly. This is not fair, and is not supported by anyone, not even the ACBL. As TDs and ACs we should be sympathetic to players who have done no wrong in the legal sense, and we should be giving redress to players whose opponents have committed an infraction, and who have then not committed egregious errors, not attempted a double shot, and not committed irrational, wild or gambling action. Please have sympathy for such players: South has a decision to make, and being informed correctly will likely make the difference: a game try response could be *much* weaker than a forcing response. >On Tuesday, July 11, 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: >>Hello once again, >> >>I would like to hear (er, read) your comments on a problem that arose >>yesterday in a pairs tournament. >>All players involved are reasonably competent ; N/S are an established >>partnership ; E/W are frequent teammates and share a common partner, but >>play only in their 3rd or 4th session together. >> >>East / none >> >> xx >> 9xx >> AKQ10xx >> xx >> >> AKQxx x >> --- KQJxxx >> 9 Jxxx >> KQJ9xx xx >> >> J109xx >> A10xx >> x >> A10x >> >> East South West North >> >> 2H(1) pass 3C (2) 3D >> pass 3NT double pass >> pass pass >> >>(1) classical weak 2 >>(2) alerted, asked, then explained as 'not forcing, but not >>weak' >> >>3NT went down 3. >> >>Now it transpires that 3C was intended as forcing. >>E/W produce no convention card. >> >>South calls for the director, and explains that, had he known 3C was a >>strong and forcing bid, he wouldn't have taken the risk of >>bidding 3NT. >> >>How do you rule ? >> >> A. >> > -- 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 Wed Jul 12 23:52:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA12774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:52:53 +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 XAA12769 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:52:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-129.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-129.interpacket.net [216.252.211.129]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id pa136073 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:05:18 +1000 Message-ID: <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pam" To: References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:44:38 +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 "Personally, I'd love to open 1H/1S in 3rd seat with 0-5 or 12+ HCP and >=5c and have my partner give all the normal/systematic responses. I think that such a pre-emptive measure would be a winning bid, though I'm probably wrong about that too." Personally I'd love to as well. The problem is that after we do it a few times, it becomes "the system" - 1H/S is 12+ with 5+ Clubs OR 0-5. This "becomes", over time, an agreement. Unfortunately, most zones have system restrictions - a bid like that is likely to be a HUM - and therefore banned in most levels of competition below national or international. I suspect that deep down, this the "evil" we are trying to combat - partnerships having undisclosed agreements about methods employed that are illegal in the competition in which they are playing. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: 12 July 2000 3:48 Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try > >From: Herman De Wael > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > The laws do not allow that a > > > player may be 'blind' to his partner's > > > habits. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >Actually, Grattan, you will notice that the Laws even oblige > >a player to be blind to his partner's habits. > > > >Or have you forgotten L16 ? > > > No. L16 requires you to be wide awake and shoot yourself in the foot > if necessary so that you can save the TD from that hassle. Bonus ethics > points if shooting yourself was unnecessary. > > > >The same is true about the H1H. As soon as my partner > >starts catering for the possibility, there can be question > >of "system". So far, none of my partners have ever bid as > >if there has been anything wrong. > > I got chastised once about takeout doubles. In both situations the > bidding had gone P-1 Platypus-X. In both cases I held 4441 hands with the > singleton in the bid suit and 0-1 pts. I thought it was a safe bid since I > intended to pass my hand for the rest of the auction. My partner didn't > have to bid as if anything were wrong or not, the auction was safe from > disaster. Could I do this if we alerted it and put it on the CC? > Personally, I'd love to open 1H/1S in 3rd seat with 0-5 or 12+ HCP and > >=5c and have my partner give all the normal/systematic responses. I think > that such a preemptive measure would be a winning bid, though I'm probably > wrong about that too. > Because the situations above can happen and the law can't and shouldn't > have to tell the difference between safe and gambling systems, there're > different criteria for whether or not a psychic bid can be made. Inability > or refusal to field a psyche is not enough to keep it legal as the inability > or refusal to field a psyche could be the point of your system, whether or > not it actually is. > > >You all seem to think that this is something that I let my > >partners into. You all have far more knowledge about the > >H1H than any of my partners. Even those that have > >experienced it more than once. > > Oh, so you are playing a different system than your partner? :) > > >I am trying, very hard, to get to completer disclosure. I > >want my opponents to know MORE than my partner. > >And you are punishing me by not allowing me to psyche ? > > > >While at the next table someone produces the exact same > >psyche, and without any evidence as to whether he has done > >the same thing before, he is allowed to do it while I am not > >? > > > >Really guys, go back into your corner and think this > >through. > > Brutal paradox. The only players that get caught are those honest > enough to turn themselves in. :) Can you find any other laws with this > problem? > > -Todd > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 02:23:23 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:36 +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 CAA13417 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-95.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.95]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27468 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:11:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >No. > > > >What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? > > Hmmm. You open 1H, the oppos reach 3NT, you turn up with the HQ, your > partner has a decision to make. He needs to guess whether to play you > for the SQ or for at least four clubs. > > Are you sure that he will play you for the SQ? > Different problem. That's simply the use of valid knowledge : partnership experience. This is AI. As stated, IMO, the fact of the existence of partnership experience does not create an agreement ! This is no criterium by which to judge. Do search on, I'm still waiting. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 03:23:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13399 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-95.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.95]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27439 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C5E74.233E76A8@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:03:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <000601bfeb5c$b8572260$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough > > to make it systemic. Sorry about that. > > The point is not that you have made this psyche before. > This does not make it systemic. > > The H1H is systemic (and not a psyche) because > you 'open' many eligible hands with 1H. > Habitual violations of an existing system > constitute implicit agreements. > I do believe there is a "may" or "can" in that quote from the CoP. Anyway, I tried the H1S yesterday. I simply marked the score sheet at the end : all the others 4Sp E = -620 me 4Sp -1700 Yes, they made the same 10 tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 03:33:32 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:32 +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 CAA13411 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-95.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.95]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27457 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C5FD1.7A862206@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:08:49 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough > >to make it systemic. Sorry about that. > > > Agreed. But I think if you *always* do it, then it becomes systemic. If > you do it some of the time then I think you're still ok. > > cheers john OK, next time I have a valid hand (please tell me what is a valid hand) I will pass in third seat and inform you all of it. Then I can do it twice again after that ? This cannot be a valid criterium. These situations come up once every ... (how long has this thread been going on - yesterday I had a H1S, not a single possible H1H since we started, and I play 3 tournaments a week). Please create regulations that are enforcible. This one isn't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 03:35:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:35:53 +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 DAA13926 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:35:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 56509 invoked for bounce); 12 Jul 2000 17:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.156) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 12 Jul 2000 17:35:28 -0000 Message-ID: <000301bfec27$bf741a00$9c391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be><02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be><000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be><008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:22:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In article <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > > snip > > > >The fact that I have opened in the past, and may well do so > >in the future, 1 Heart, does not make that "in the system". > > > >The mere fact of it happening does not put it in the system. > >There must be something else. > > > >I have not yet made up my mind whethet the H1H is sytemic, > >but I am beginning to suspect that it is. > > > >So far, no-one has been able to point out anything that > >would make it systemic, except for the fact that I have done > >it. > > > >I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough > >to make it systemic. Sorry about that. > > > Agreed. But I think if you *always* do it, then it becomes systemic. If > you do it some of the time then I think you're still ok. I agree with John. The H1H is opened on almost all 'eligible' hands and thus it is systemic. The Probst 1NT is overcalled on only a small fraction of all 'eligible' hands and might be partnership experience, but is not systemic. It might be difficult to decide where to draw the line, however. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 04:19:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:19:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f148.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.148]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA14215 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 62750 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jul 2000 18:18:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20000712181852.62749.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.22 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:18:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:18:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Thomas Dehn" >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > > writes > > Agreed. But I think if you *always* do it, then it becomes systemic. If > > you do it some of the time then I think you're still ok. > >I agree with John. The H1H is opened on almost all 'eligible' >hands and thus it is systemic. The Probst 1NT is overcalled >on only a small fraction of all 'eligible' hands >and might be partnership experience, but is not systemic. > >It might be difficult to decide where to draw the line, however. Maybe this is the wrong line to draw. Say I open 100% of all yarboroughs and 2% of all flat 10 counts with 1NT. When I open 1NT, the odds are roughly 50/50 that I have a yarborough or a flat 10 count. By your definition, the flat 10 count is not systematic. I think it is. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 04:23:24 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:25 +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 CAA13401 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-95.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.95]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27447 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:03:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C5F21.CB1AFE30@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:05:54 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <000601bfeb5c$b8572260$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> <396BDA17.4A406B5D@relaypoint.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > I been following this thread, which I find interesting but I am puzzled > by the following: Thomas Dehn seems to say: > > "You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands - 11+, >5H and - > 0-3, <= 2H > then > a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is > "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" > whereas > b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically > is "11+, >5H" > I consider this absurd." > > What on earth does the presence or absence of the Drury convention have > to do with the definition of the H1H? It may or may not be considered > systemic, but bringing up Drury seems like a non sequitur to me. What am > I missing? > > Irv Kostal > I do not play Drury, and so yesterday my partner raised my 1Sp (after a double) to 4Sp. 7 down. -1700. If I do play Drury, we have some way of escaping in 2He (of which we had a 5-3 fit) This seems an important enough difference to me, to say that the H1H is systemic if combined with Drury. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 04:55:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA14450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:55:06 +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 EAA14445 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:54:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA18951 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA09925 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:54:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007121854.OAA09925@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Both the TD and the AC should have asked West what he was up to try > and find out the thought processes [it is OK, Steve, this is Wales, we > do not need to worry about players telling us porkies]. Moi?! I'm hurt. :-) I'm guessing that 'porkies' are fibs, but it must be a Welsh word. First of all, I agree that _these_ players aren't going to be trying it on. They wouldn't know enough to do it if they wanted to. (Five card Stayman!) Second, see below. > But if the TD and the AC after probing believe that he *really* used > 5-card Stayman then 4H over 3H is an LA, the failure to alert 3C was UI, > and the correct ruling was to adjust to 4H-2. David and I get to the same ruling on slightly different routes. I'd say there is no L16A violation because 4H isn't a LA. I could be persuaded I'm wrong for peers of _these_ players, but it doesn't make any difference to the ruling. What I want to find out is whether there was a L73C violation. If so, adjust (L12A1). As I say, David and I want to determine the same facts and will wind up with the same ruling (assuming we agree on the facts and bridge judgment), but we apply slightly different laws. Being in or outside Wales doesn't make any difference that I can see. I think the key difference between us may be that I believe the player's intent doesn't matter for L16A but it does for L73C. I suppose the different approaches might matter for some other case, but I can't think of an example. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 05:12:22 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13435 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-95.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.95]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27506 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C629E.86BA6AFE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:20:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > > Come off it Thomas, a 1H opener is treated as 11+ just as your > 1NT bid is treated as 15-17. There is *No* difference. > > The illegal bit is that if Herman passes in third seat his partner > should also alert and point out Herman doesn't have 0-2 and 2 hearts. > That is regulated and contravenes L40B. > > OTOH if I pass over one of a minor I might well have 6 hearts and a weak > hand, so partner doesn't need to worry. > > That I think is why Herman is going to have to pass some of the Herman > 1H's so his partner doesn't have to alert his 3rd in hand pass, then I > think he'll be kosher again. cheers john > This is the only argument that might sway me. If I ALWAYS open every 0-2 hand in third, then indeed my passing in third position indicates 3+. I don't believe I always open every 0-2. Then, the passing indicates 3+, or 0-2 with "unsuitable psyching distribution". I'm still trying to figure out what is suitable. J 87543 Jxx xxx is not suitable for a H1S. The argument might be valid. I shall sometime pass a 3 pointer from now on. Can't say the same for the zero-pointer of course, but then again, I've never seen one of those before. So I'm safe there, am I not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 06:02:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:02:42 +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 GAA15247 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04761; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:58:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200007121958.MAA04761@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:54:48 PDT." <200007121854.OAA09925@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:58:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > Both the TD and the AC should have asked West what he was up to try > > and find out the thought processes [it is OK, Steve, this is Wales, we > > do not need to worry about players telling us porkies]. > > Moi?! I'm hurt. :-) I'm guessing that 'porkies' are fibs, but it must > be a Welsh word. > > First of all, I agree that _these_ players aren't going to be trying it > on. They wouldn't know enough to do it if they wanted to. (Five card > Stayman!) Second, see below. > > > But if the TD and the AC after probing believe that he *really* used > > 5-card Stayman then 4H over 3H is an LA, the failure to alert 3C was UI, > > and the correct ruling was to adjust to 4H-2. > > David and I get to the same ruling on slightly different routes. I'd > say there is no L16A violation because 4H isn't a LA. I could be > persuaded I'm wrong for peers of _these_ players, but it doesn't make > any difference to the ruling. What I want to find out is whether there > was a L73C violation. If so, adjust (L12A1). A couple comments: (1) I was under the impression that there was no way to violate L73C without violating L16A/L73F1 (except perhaps in some unusual circumstances?). My understanding was that L73C states the general principle and lets players know what is required of them, while L16A (and L73F1, which copies part of L16A's wording and then tells the reader to go there) explain just how the principle is to be applied in practice. (2) When determining what a logical alternative is, you must do so in the context of one's system, or in a case like this, in the context of what the player believes his system is. Clearly, 4H is a logical alternative for any of West's peers who play that 3H shows five hearts in this auction. The fact that you probably could not find any peers who actually play this "system" doesn't affect this---you have to pretend there are peers who play this way and then guess what 25% or 30% or "some number" of them would do. I don't see how 4H could not be judged a LA. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 06:07:58 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA15284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:07:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15279 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:07:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.85.5]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000712200740.LPMQ26680.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bfec3c$b2c1c720$0555fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <200007121854.OAA09925@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:06:41 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 7:54 PM Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. > > From: David Stevenson > > Both the TD and the AC should have asked West what he was up to try > > and find out the thought processes [it is OK, Steve, this is Wales, we > > do not need to worry about players telling us porkies]. > > Moi?! I'm hurt. :-) I'm guessing that 'porkies' are fibs, but it must > be a Welsh word. > No Steve, the Welsh word for a fib is far more poetic. In the East End of London, which is in England, there a corruption of English language known as cockney rhyming slang. Pork Pie is rhyming slang for a lie, and this is corrupted to porkies, and is used widely in Britain. Other examples are; plates of meat = feet;apples and pairs = stairs; With an e-mail address at Havard I am surprised you did not know this:-)) Anne > > First of all, I agree that _these_ players aren't going to be trying it > on. They wouldn't know enough to do it if they wanted to. (Five card > Stayman!) Second, see below. > > > But if the TD and the AC after probing believe that he *really* used > > 5-card Stayman then 4H over 3H is an LA, the failure to alert 3C was UI, > > and the correct ruling was to adjust to 4H-2. > > David and I get to the same ruling on slightly different routes. I'd > say there is no L16A violation because 4H isn't a LA. I could be > persuaded I'm wrong for peers of _these_ players, but it doesn't make > any difference to the ruling. What I want to find out is whether there > was a L73C violation. If so, adjust (L12A1). > > As I say, David and I want to determine the same facts and will wind up > with the same ruling (assuming we agree on the facts and bridge > judgment), but we apply slightly different laws. Being in or outside > Wales doesn't make any difference that I can see. > > I think the key difference between us may be that I believe the > player's intent doesn't matter for L16A but it does for L73C. I > suppose the different approaches might matter for some other case, but > I can't think of an example. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 06:23:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:40 +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 CAA13425 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-95.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.95]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27483 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C6164.9229002E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:15:32 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <000701bfeb5c$b8c378c0$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? > > "The following hands will be opened with 1H: ..." > That's your system with respect to your 1H opener. > > "Partner's will respond to 1H as follows: ..." > That's your system with respect to partner's responses. > But there is no difference. There is only one "system". > I can agree that 1NT shows 10-12, and partner nevertheless has > to raise to 3NT on any flat 12 count. The agreement > on partner's responses does not change the 1NT opener > into a 12-14. > So the "system" is : "raise on any flat 12 count". That seems synonimous to me to "12-14". Then if you say it is 10-12, you are simply lying. Especially if you happen to have opened on 13. > > If everything that you do is considered systemic, then there > > can be no such thing as a psyche. > > A psyche is a gross deviation from your system. Exactly my point. If everything is considered system, how can there be deviations. > Your system consists of your explicit and implicit > agreements. Your reproducible actions do form implicit > agreements, habitual psyches become part of your system > (see also L75B). > Random psyches are not part of your system > Here we are back at the random part. Another criterium I have frequently shown to be impracticable. > > Then we can simply write > > L40D as : it is forbidden to open on less than ... The Laws > > are not written this way, and so it is incorrect to > > interpret them as if they were. > > It is not forbidden to psyche a 1H opener in 3rd seat. > Which is what I do. And you forbid it, merely on the fact that I have done it before. We're going round in circles. > Thomas -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 07:31:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:31:14 +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 HAA15620 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CU5n-0009d5-00; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:30:56 +0100 Message-ID: <004301bfec48$ccf6f3c0$7a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Herman De Wael" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <000601bfeb5c$b8572260$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> <396C5E74.233E76A8@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:30:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 1:03 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try > > I do believe there is a "may" or "can" in that quote from > the CoP. > +=+ Indeed. The quote here, with a 'may' in it, is from the laws, approximately. The CoP has some reasonably similar wording, also with a 'may' in it. The Director has to decide whether there is a partnership understanding and, if so, whether it is has been announced prior to the call based upon it To do this convincingly the Director probably needs to know what he is looking for, what is a 'partnership understanding'. In the Code of Practice the WBF has set out some guidance on what would constitute such an understanding. It has said that it would exist if there was a heightened awareness in the partner of the likelihood of the call being psychic. That would be something that both partners would be held to know and, however it may have come about, would thus be a partnership understanding. The CoP cites four ways in which it might arise, the second of them perhaps only rarely; we have not thought of others but we may always have failed to envision a situation. I psyche and you have the advantage of a special awareness that I may have psyched. The law says that our mutual knowledge must be shared in advance with opponents. Whether you happen to agree or not, the Director for his part is entitled to rely upon the law, and upon the official guidance given, when making his decision on the legitimacy of the call. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 07:31:14 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:31:14 +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 HAA15619 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:31:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CU5m-0009d5-00; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:30:54 +0100 Message-ID: <004201bfec48$cc045660$7a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <396C5FD1.7A862206@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:16:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > Please create regulations that are enforcible. > This one isn't. > +=+ Does it ever occur to you, after you have made one of these 'psyches', to call the Director at the end of the hand and say to him: "In the auction I opened 1H on this hand. My partner knows I do this kind of thing every so often"? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 07:55:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:55:01 +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 HAA15791 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:54:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88811 invoked for bounce); 12 Jul 2000 21:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.46) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 12 Jul 2000 21:54:41 -0000 Message-ID: <01e201bfec4b$f5e21500$9c391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be><02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be><000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be><008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:52:16 +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" > In article <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit>, Thomas Dehn > writes > > > >"Herman De Wael" wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > > >> > Herman de Wael went off the road: > >> > > >> > It is part of your system. > >> > > >> > > >> > Thomas > >> > >> Why are you picking on me ? > > > >Because it is quite obvious that a 3rd hand > >1He opening by HDW does not "mean" 11+, > 5cHe. > >You just have an agreement with partner that partner > >treads it as 11+. Do you see the difference? > > > > > Come off it Thomas, a 1H opener is treated as 11+ just as your > 1NT bid is treated as 15-17. There is *No* difference. In order to decide what the H1H 'means', it does matter what hands Herman will actually open with 1H, but it does not matter much whether his partner will bid in a way which takes into account all possible variations. I expect that if the bidding begins p p H1H X 1S p p anything then his partner will not bid according to the assumption that Herman holds 12+ HCP > The illegal bit is that if Herman passes in third seat his partner > should also alert and point out Herman doesn't have 0-2 and 2 hearts. > That is regulated and contravenes L40B. I expect that Herman's partners try to fulfil such obligations, otherwise Herman would not want to partner them. > OTOH if I pass over one of a minor I might well have 6 hearts and a weak > hand, so partner doesn't need to worry. > > That I think is why Herman is going to have to pass some of the Herman > 1H's so his partner doesn't have to alert his 3rd in hand pass, then I > think he'll be kosher again. cheers john I think that Herman is not kosher because his H1H is systemic the way he applies it, and then a) he is playing a HUM 3rd seat 1H opener b) he is not plyying the same system as his partner who most likely does not open 1H with Herman's favorite hands. I agree, though, that Herman would be alright if he would frequently pass on such hands, and occasionally throw in other, more random 1H psyches. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 07:55:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:55:01 +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 HAA15790 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:54:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88802 invoked for bounce); 12 Jul 2000 21:54:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.46) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 12 Jul 2000 21:54:40 -0000 Message-ID: <01e101bfec4b$f55bce00$9c391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <000601bfeb5c$b8572260$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> <396BDA17.4A406B5D@relaypoint.net> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:50:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Irwin J Kostal" asked: > I been following this thread, which I find interesting but I am puzzled > by the following: Thomas Dehn seems to say: > > "You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands - 11+, >5H and - > 0-3, <= 2H > then > a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is > "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" > whereas > b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically > is "11+, >5H" > I consider this absurd." > > What on earth does the presence or absence of the Drury convention have > to do with the definition of the H1H? Nothing, of course. Didn't I state that I consider such a distinction absurd? ;-) > It may or may not be considered > systemic, but bringing up Drury seems > like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing? Herman suggested that he would consider his H1H opener systemic if he played Drury to find out whether the 1H opener is a psyche or not. Thomas > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to claim that if you open 1H on all hands > > > > - 11+, >5H > > > > and > > > > - 0-3, <= 2H > > > > then > > > > a) if you play drury, your 1H opener systematically is > > > > "11+, >5H, or 0-3, <= 2H" > > > > whereas > > > > b) if you do not play drury, the same 1H opener systematically > > > > is "11+, >5H" > > > > I consider this absurd. The systematical meaning of you > > > > 1H opener is what hands will be opened with 1H > > > > in your system. Whatever follow-up conventions you > > > > play is irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > You said it yourself : > > > > > > > in your system. > > > > > > The fact that I have opened in the past, and may well do so > > > in the future, 1 Heart, does not make that "in the system". > > > > > > The mere fact of it happening does not put it in the system. > > > There must be something else. > > > > > > I have not yet made up my mind whethet the H1H is sytemic, > > > but I am beginning to suspect that it is. > > > > > > So far, no-one has been able to point out anything that > > > would make it systemic, except for the fact that I have done > > > it. > > > > > > I repeat : the mere fact that I have done it is not enough > > > to make it systemic. Sorry about that. > > > > The point is not that you have made this psyche before. > > This does not make it systemic. > > > > The H1H is systemic (and not a psyche) because > > you 'open' many eligible hands with 1H. > > Habitual violations of an existing system > > constitute implicit agreements. > > > > Thomas > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 08:23:26 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:04:38 +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 IAA15866 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:04:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA27259; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10735; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007122204.SAA10735@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Cc: hermandw@village.uunet.be Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The Director has to > decide whether there is a partnership > understanding and, if so, whether it is has > been announced prior to the call based > upon it "Announced" also needs a qualifier, doesn't it? The words in L40B are "discloses ... in accordance with the regulations of the SO." Many partnership understandings are permitted without advance disclosure, for example which order to cue bid controls. I have never heard that it's illegal to have an agreement on this subject, but few SO's require disclosure in advance. I'm also curious about my example of 1NT on 10 points. The real agreement was 10-12, but the convention card said 15-17. Is the 1NT bid itself illegal? Here there is no doubt of a L40B violation, but everyone who posted wanted to adjust only for MI, not for an illegal bid. In other words, they would adjust only if the opponents might have entered the auction had they known the true range, not if the 1NT bid itself caused damage. Is this wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 09:07:01 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:07:01 +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 JAA16089 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:06:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13CVaQ-0008yX-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:06:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Tr: Did anybody double? References: <003c01bfeb48$9bf8a6c0$376bfac1@cllubintplord> 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 >>> IMO he is applying Law 24C. Presumed dummy is exposed during what you >>think >>> is still bidding period and partner has to bid. According to 24C, Presumed >>> declarer is compeled to pass (once). Then bidding is over. At last, for >>> everybody. > > Merci, Oliver, someone has written to me pointing this out. I >understand the possibility. I am now going to think this over for a >couple of days. > je dis, j'ai dit tout ca le premier fois que j'ai repondu a c't ficelle -- 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 Jul 13 09:07:00 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:07:00 +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 JAA16090 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:06:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13CVaQ-0008yY-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:06:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:05:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. References: <200007121854.OAA09925@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007121854.OAA09925@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <200007121854.OAA09925@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> Both the TD and the AC should have asked West what he was up to try >> and find out the thought processes [it is OK, Steve, this is Wales, we >> do not need to worry about players telling us porkies]. > >Moi?! I'm hurt. :-) I'm guessing that 'porkies' are fibs, but it must >be a Welsh word. > It's cockney rhyming slang Pork Pies - Lies. I'll post in Cockney for a couple of weeks if you like. (I do live there). Jacks gets a score if you understand me though. 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 Jul 13 09:53:47 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA16675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:53:47 +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 JAA16669 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:53:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09212; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:50:02 -0700 Message-Id: <200007122350.QAA09212@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Needle in a haystack. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:05:43 PDT." Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:50:03 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > I'll post in Cockney for a couple of weeks if you like. (I do live > there). Jacks gets a score if you understand me though. John Probst wrote: > je dis, j'ai dit tout ca le premier fois que j'ai repondu a c't ficelle Funny, I never knew Cockney looked so much like French . . . -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 10:12:41 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:12:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from networksgy.com ([208.153.97.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16732 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:12:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from john [208.153.97.185] by networksgy.com (SMTPD32-6.03) id ACCAE490050; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:18:34 -0300 Message-ID: <000201bfec56$b21ab2e0$b96199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor" From: "John A. Mac Gregor" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:40:15 -0300 Organization: CACBF Chief Tournament Director MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: | > | > The laws do not allow that a | > player may be 'blind' to his partner's | > habits. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Herman wrote: | | Actually, Grattan, you will notice that the Laws even oblige | a player to be blind to his partner's habits. | | Or have you forgotten L16 ? | | The same is true about the H1H. As soon as my partner | starts catering for the possibility, there can be question | of "system". So far, none of my partners have ever bid as | if there has been anything wrong. At some point in time, the psycher's partner obtains a heightened awareness that something funny is happening. There are either too many points or too many hearts. When they are better prepared to diagnose the bluffer, and it happens to be partner, they have some kind of "agreement". Now, the opps need to know about this. As I would certainly rank the H1H as an "odd bid" or Brown Sticker, there are restrictions on it's use in that case. There could be early filing of CCs, disclosure prior to play, suggested defences, Alerts - all kinds of obligations. | You all seem to think that this is something that I let my | partners into. You all have far more knowledge about the | H1H than any of my partners. Even those that have | experienced it more than once. | | I am trying, very hard, to get to completer disclosure. I | want my opponents to know MORE than my partner. | And you are punishing me by not allowing me to psyche ? I firmly believe that the psyche is a part of the game. To outlaw this very useful tactic would destory a strategy that has been employed since the beginning. However, if it comes anywhere near systemic, the rules need to be enforced to the letter. If you are a random but infrequent psycher, let 'er rip !!! | | While at the next table someone produces the exact same | psyche, and without any evidence as to whether he has done | the same thing before, he is allowed to do it while I am not | ? | | Really guys, go back into your corner and think this | through. | | -- | Herman DE WAEL I have been fooled before and certainly done some fooling. But in steady partnerships, there is too much chance of the big glove coming in to play. John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 11:45:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:45:53 +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 LAA17036 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:45:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13CY4C-000K7R-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:45:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:00:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <396C6065.67D2009@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: >> >> > >> >No. >> > >> >What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? >> >> Hmmm. You open 1H, the oppos reach 3NT, you turn up with the HQ, your >> partner has a decision to make. He needs to guess whether to play you >> for the SQ or for at least four clubs. >> >> Are you sure that he will play you for the SQ? >> > >Different problem. > >That's simply the use of valid knowledge : partnership >experience. >This is AI. Oh, I see, it is AI. Good. Of course, since it is undisclosed .... -- 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 Thu Jul 13 11:56:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:56:35 +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 LAA17083; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:56:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [199.172.253.31] by stormy.ibl.bm (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-65377U14500L13000S0V35) with SMTP id bm; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:56:12 -0300 Date: 12 Jul 2000 22:54:22 -0700 Message-ID: <-1248680040jrhind@ibl.bm> From: Jack Rhind Subject: Re: To: , David Stevenson , David Stevenson , X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 2.0.4 (Mac) X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Jack Rhind 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 LAB17085 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you have said below but remember that my remarks pertain to this hand only, not a general approach. By South own admission he "wouldn't have taken the risk of bidding 3NT" if he had known West's bid was forcing. South would not have called the director had 3NT made. He wants redress as a result if both an incorrect explanation and his own bad bid. That is why in this particular case I would allow the result to stand for N/S but penalize E/W. On Wednesday, July 12, 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jack Rhind wrote: >>My feeling on this one is to let the North/South result stand. Although they may >>have been given incorrect information regarding the meaning of the 3C bid, they >>did know that it showed a good hand.Essentially I feel that North/South have >>made their own bed here and are not entitled to redress.I would, however, give >>a PP to East/West for not having a correctly completed CC. > > This may be the difference between the approach in North/Central >America and the Rest of the World, but it is the type of hand that seems >very unfair to me. N/S have done nothing ridiculous: their actions are >not irrational, wild or gambling: they have made no egregious error: so >how can you not provide redress? > > You are saying, as I read it, that N/S should not get redress because, >despite being in a position they should not be in [being misinformed] >they misjudged a hand. Even the ACBL is beginning to move a little back >from the edge, and it is time we put this approach to rest. > > The ACBL have effectively said that NOs must continue to play bridge >to be allowed redress. While from their writings it appears they meant >that the NOs should do nothing completely stupid [they use the terms >"egregious error"] they have been mis-interpreted to mean much more, and >some TDs and ACs seem to be unwilling to allow redress unless the NOs >have played perfectly. > > This is not fair, and is not supported by anyone, not even the ACBL. >As TDs and ACs we should be sympathetic to players who have done no >wrong in the legal sense, and we should be giving redress to players >whose opponents have committed an infraction, and who have then not >committed egregious errors, not attempted a double shot, and not >committed irrational, wild or gambling action. > > Please have sympathy for such players: South has a decision to make, >and being informed correctly will likely make the difference: a game try >response could be *much* weaker than a forcing response. > >>On Tuesday, July 11, 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: >>>Hello once again, >>> >>>I would like to hear (er, read) your comments on a problem that arose >>>yesterday in a pairs tournament. >>>All players involved are reasonably competent ; N/S are an established >>>partnership ; E/W are frequent teammates and share a common partner, but >>>play only in their 3rd or 4th session together. >>> >>>East / none >>> >>> xx >>> 9xx >>> AKQ10xx >>> xx >>> >>> AKQxx x >>> --- KQJxxx >>> 9 Jxxx >>> KQJ9xx xx >>> >>> J109xx >>> A10xx >>> x >>> A10x >>> >>> East South West North >>> >>> 2H(1) pass 3C (2) 3D >>> pass 3NT double pass >>> pass pass >>> >>>(1) classical weak 2 >>>(2) alerted, asked, then explained as 'not forcing, but not >>>weak' >>> >>>3NT went down 3. >>> >>>Now it transpires that 3C was intended as forcing. >>>E/W produce no convention card. >>> >>>South calls for the director, and explains that, had he known 3C was a >>>strong and forcing bid, he wouldn't have taken the risk of >>>bidding 3NT. >>> >>>How do you rule ? >>> >>> A. >>> >> > >-- >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 Thu Jul 13 13:41:50 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:41:50 +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 NAA17500 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:41:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.129]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6D3ffK17740 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:41:41 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:41:41 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Alert? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Now, as promised, part 2. There is an EBU regulation concerned with > this, and it reads as follows: > > > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) Having arrived on this thread 10 days late, it was interesting that many people acted as if the above (or similar) sentiments were law/regulation without ever observing that there were. There are those on here who would criticise extra-legal zealousness by a certain proponent of "Active Ethics". I hope they weren't the ones acting in this case according to some fictitious principle of "minimising partner's UI", "trying to be helpful to the opponents" or "bidding what you would have done without the UI". Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 13:44:40 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:40 +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 NAA17533 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.129]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6D3iVK17795 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:31 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:31 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Alert? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > 3.3.1 > If as a result of your partner's > explanation you realise you have misbid, > you must continue to call as if in > ignorance of the correct meaning of your > call, until it is obvious from the > auction that something is amiss. > Meanwhile you must alert, where necessary, > and explain, if asked, your partner's > calls solely according to your partnership > agreements. (Law 73C) > > My answer to [7] is this draft regulation: > > *If unauthorised information (for example partner's explanation, alert, > failure to alert or hesitation) demonstrates that you have misbid, you must > continue to call as if your original misbid was in fact a partnership > agreement. Meanwhile, any alerts and explanations you give must be > according to the agreed partnership system. > > Richard Hills The introductory sentence is *much* better in Richard's suggestion - the EBU regulation only applies to cases where partner's explanation *DID* in fact wake you up. In order not to be bound by it, one merely has to assert that it was not partner's explanation that woke one up! Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 17:22:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18249 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.228] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CdKA-000GcT-00; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:22:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bfec9b$6cb8ce40$e45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Cc: References: <200007122204.SAA10735@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:24:03 +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: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try > I'm also curious about my example of 1NT on 10 points. The real > agreement was 10-12, but the convention card said 15-17. Is the 1NT > bid itself illegal? Here there is no doubt of a L40B violation, but > everyone who posted wanted to adjust only for MI, not for an illegal > bid. In other words, they would adjust only if the opponents might > have entered the auction had they known the true range, not if the 1NT > bid itself caused damage. Is this wrong? > +=+ If the true agreement was 10-12 and this was not disclosed there was clearly a concealed partnership understanding, whether in all innocence or through malice. The Director may act under 40B. The pair is also subject to the possibility of a penalty. In the absence of specific detail I would support the Director in the exercise of his discretion. ~ G ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 17:22:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:57 +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 RAA18256 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.228] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CdK9-000GcT-00; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:22:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bfec9b$6bc630e0$e45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , Cc: References: <200007122204.SAA10735@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:07:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > The Director has to > > decide whether there is a partnership > > understanding and, if so, whether it is has > > been announced prior to the call based > > upon it > > "Announced" also needs a qualifier, doesn't it? The words in L40B are > "discloses ... in accordance with the regulations of the SO." Many > partnership understandings are permitted without advance disclosure, for > example which order to cue bid controls. I have never heard that it's > illegal to have an agreement on this subject, but few SO's require > disclosure in advance. > +=+ I wrote purely from the point of view of the law in the absence of a legitimate regulation. I would agree that a regulation made under Law 40D or 40E1 may over-ride what the law (40A) says - this is the effect of the WBF's 'Geneva' ruling. I think it is unusual for a regulating authority to permit psychic action based on an understanding to be disclosed only by a post facto alert. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 18:42:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:42:57 +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 SAA18545 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:42:45 +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 13CeZi-000Lr1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:42:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:55:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <-1248680040jrhind@ibl.bm> In-Reply-To: <-1248680040jrhind@ibl.bm> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jack Rhind wrote: >David, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you have said below but remember >that my remarks pertain to this hand only, not a general approach. By South own >admission he "wouldn't have taken the risk of bidding 3NT" if he had known >West's bid was forcing. South would not have called the director had 3NT made. >He wants redress as a result if both an incorrect explanation and his own bad >bid. That is why in this particular case I would allow the result to stand for >N/S but penalize E/W. In that case, you and I are differing only in our judgement of the actual hand - and that is not a very interesting discussion in my view. -- 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 Thu Jul 13 19:18:16 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18726 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-73.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.73]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02304 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:17:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396C9B70.2D4A5B65@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:23:12 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Noel & Pam wrote: > > "Personally, I'd love to open 1H/1S in 3rd seat with 0-5 or 12+ HCP and > >=5c and have my partner give all the normal/systematic responses. I think > that such a pre-emptive measure would be a winning bid, though I'm probably > wrong about that too." > > Personally I'd love to as well. > > The problem is that after we do it a few times, it becomes "the system" - > 1H/S is 12+ with 5+ Clubs OR 0-5. This "becomes", over time, an agreement. > Yes, I am aware of that. However, there is a difference. Frequent same-type (deviations-psyches) create knowledge in the partnership. In order for there to be a system change, there has to be some sort of "aknowledgment" from partner - catering. But that is a well stated point of mine, I won't elaborate. The second part of Noel's reply is far more interesting : > Unfortunately, most zones have system restrictions - a bid like that is > likely to be a HUM - and therefore banned in most levels of competition > below national or international. I suspect that deep down, this the "evil" > we are trying to combat - partnerships having undisclosed agreements about > methods employed that are illegal in the competition in which they are > playing. > Exactly. Not deep down at all. The difference between "psyche" and "system" is only important on the level of L40D. If it is systemic, is it allowed ? Now, why are weak openings - usually - banned ? Because they bar the opponents, while the partnership can cope. The H1H does also bar the opponents, yes, but the partnership cannot cope. And so there is no real reason to ban the H1H. Here are 2 examples : Someone opens 1He on Jxxx 87 Jxx xxxx (non-vul, in third). They do not play Drury. Someone opens 1Sp on KQJxx xx xxx Kxx. They do play Drury. Who has made life more difficult for their opponents ? And who is the most likely to escape with a good score ? Now in some jurisdictions, weak openings are defined by the use of the Law of 18. The second hand comes only up to 17. Do you accept that the second is a psyche, and thus non-bannable ? Or do you accept that the first is a psyche ? Which one of those is the more damaging to the game ? Why ever should this be any different if that first player is that well-known CPU'er Herman ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 13 19:21:48 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from areca.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA18750 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by areca.wanadoo.fr; 13 Jul 2000 11:21:30 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.107.63) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 13 Jul 2000 11:21:16 +0200 Message-ID: <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk><39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:24:43 +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: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Did anybody double? > Herman De Wael wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> > >> OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Someone who thinks that we "enforce > >> the pass" please explain to me how we enforce something that never > >> happened. > >> > > > >Indeed it has not yet happened. > > > >So we now ask him to make a final call, which is a pass > >(forced). > > Excuse me, if I am declarer, and you tell me to make a call, there is > *no way* that I am passing. Tell me, Herman, where in your Law book > does it give the TD the right to tell a player what call he must make? > Ok, where it says a player must pass throughout, of course. Which one > of those Laws are you applying here? IMO he is applying Law 24C. Presumed dummy is exposed during what you think is still bidding period and partner has to bid. According to 24C, Presumed declarer is compeled to pass (once). Then bidding is over. At last, for everybody. I have a small story *not so incredible* for all those who thinks we are still in the bidding period when *last* player to bid take back his previous bids to the box. Bidding proceeds : 1H 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S 4H Pass Pass ?? Then the 1S*bidder who must bid now takes back 1S and 3S and put the SAce on the table. His LHO puts his 13 cards down (?dummy). Now he says "but I have not bid on 4H, I want to bid 4S/Dbl". If you let him do that, says he bid 4S, his RHO is out of bid for one round (L24C) and LHO must guess directly between Pass/5H/Dbl. If LHO pass/dbl over 4S, then the contract is 4S(X) and LHO plays with 13 exposed cards. He can also double, whitch can be right when he see dummy!! The TD cannot throw the board with a 60/60 (or 60/40). What's your ruling? How to you feel this one? I hope not to have that one at the table! Happy holydays -) A+OB > > >And now the auction is complete, and we need a lead. And > >there are 10 penalty cards and an exposed dummy. > > 26 penalty cards. > > >So legally, we now ask declarer to choose from among the > >cards that leader has already played to choose the one he > >likes as a lead. > > > >Basically, we allow declarer to make as many tricks as he > >can. > > > >4HX-2 is a likely result of all that. > > -- > 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 Thu Jul 13 19:28:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:28:15 +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 TAA18781; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:28:03 +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 LAA03457; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:26:52 +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 LAA01776; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:27:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000713113611.00872100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:36:11 +0200 To: Jack Rhind , , David Stevenson , David Stevenson , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <-1248680040jrhind@ibl.bm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:54 12/07/00 -0700, Jack Rhind wrote: >David, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you have said below but remember that my remarks pertain to this hand only, not a general approach. By South own admission he "wouldn't have taken the risk of bidding 3NT" if he had known West's bid was forcing. South would not have called the director had 3NT made. He wants redress as a result if both an incorrect explanation and his own bad bid. AG : you seem to imply that any slight gamble is a bad bid. Is it irrational for South to assume his partner has a better hand ? By the way, I asked three good players about their action over 3D with the south hand ; one bid 3NT, another considered it. So it is not, repeat not, an 'egregious error'. My point, here, is : if 3C were stronger, one could say South wouldn't have played his partner for anything better than his actual hand (3C can't be a tactical bid with heart fit, seeing his own hand). But is this subtle difference enough to pave the way to an adjusted score ? A. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 01:48:42 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:48:42 +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 BAA21906 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:48:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17057 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2000 15:46:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.1.60) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 13 Jul 2000 15:46:41 -0000 Message-ID: <396DE4DE.797E7A7F@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:48:46 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alain gottcheiner CC: Jack Rhind , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson , David Stevenson , owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: References: <3.0.6.32.20000713113611.00872100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My remarks - for this specific hand only : My final decision = score stands and S will be seriously warned for a 101% double shot. South decided to bid on his own risk....and if Diamonds wouldn't be 1-4 with J in the 4 , he/she would never cry. Dany alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 22:54 12/07/00 -0700, Jack Rhind wrote: > >David, I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you have said below but > remember that my remarks pertain to this hand only, not a general approach. > By South own admission he "wouldn't have taken the risk of bidding 3NT" if > he had known West's bid was forcing. South would not have called the > director had 3NT made. He wants redress as a result if both an incorrect > explanation and his own bad bid. > > AG : you seem to imply that any slight gamble is a bad bid. Is it > irrational for South to assume his partner has a better hand ? > > By the way, I asked three good players about their action over 3D with the > south hand ; one bid 3NT, another considered it. So it is not, repeat not, > an 'egregious error'. > > My point, here, is : if 3C were stronger, one could say South wouldn't have > played his partner for anything better than his actual hand (3C can't be a > tactical bid with heart fit, seeing his own hand). But is this subtle > difference enough to pave the way to an adjusted score ? > > A. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 02:57:25 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:57:25 +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 CAA22408 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:57:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3442 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2000 16:55:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.1.60) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 13 Jul 2000 16:55:27 -0000 Message-ID: <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:57:33 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman Herman De Wael wrote: > > Different problem. > > That's simply the use of valid knowledge : partnership > experience. > This is AI. > > As stated, IMO, the fact of the existence of partnership > experience does not create an agreement ! IMHO you crossed the RED RUBICON !!!!!! Do you really believe that there is an actual difference between "partnership experience" and "partnership understanding" ????????????????????? I prefer desperately to believe you don't !!!!! because otherwise there is no "clean" bridge anymore. Dany > > This is no criterium by which to judge. > > Do search on, I'm still waiting. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 03:03:55 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 03:03:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA22459 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 03:03:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.176] (d185fc9b0.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.176]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29974 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk><39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:54:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "olivier beauvillain" writes: >I have a small story *not so incredible* for all those who thinks we are > still in the bidding period when *last* player to bid take back his >previous bids to the box. Well, my partner accuses me of being reckless, so I'll take a shot at this one. :-) > Bidding proceeds : > 1H 1S 2H 2S > 3H 3S 4H Pass > Pass ?? > Then the 1S*bidder who must bid now takes back 1S and 3S and put the SAce >on the table. Two procedural errors: failure to put out a pass card, and failure to lead face down (or did he lead face down?) > His LHO puts his 13 cards down (?dummy). Now he says "but I have > not bid on 4H, I want to bid 4S/Dbl". It is preposterous that a player would expect to be able to (1) pick up his bidding cards, (2) make an opening lead, and (3) see the dummy, and _then_ suggest he still has a call coming. And by saying what he wants to call, he's passed UI to his partner, another infraction. > If you let him do that, says he bid 4S, his RHO is out of bid for >one round (L24C) I don't think so. Law 24 starts "when the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a player's action, one or more cards of that player's hand were in a position for the face to be seen by his partner..." If it were me, I'd rule that the action that caused "dummy" to expose his hand was not _his_, but that of the player who made the opening lead, and then, _after_ dummy was exposed, tried to rescind it. So 24C does not apply - "dummy's" cards were exposed because of an _opponent's_ action, not because of his own. In fact, it seems the led spade ace is going to cause a problem for "leader's" partner, who now must pass his partner's bid or double (if TD allows the bid or double - I wouldn't), which may damage opponents. > and LHO must guess directly between Pass/5H/Dbl. If LHO pass/dbl >over 4S, then the contract is 4S(X) >and LHO plays with 13 exposed cards. He can also double, whitch can >be right when he see dummy!! No. See above. > The TD cannot throw the board with a 60/60 (or 60/40). What's your ruling? > How to you feel this one? > I hope not to have that one at the table! So would I. As I've said here before "I am only an egg," but I would rule as follows: The failure to put out a pass card is a violation of procedure (SO/ZO regulation). PP (Warning) The Ace of Spades is the opening lead. Making it face up is a violation of law 41A. PP (Warning) The opening lead may not be withdrawn (see Law 47). The statement that "I want to bid 4S/Dbl " is improper communication (Law 74). PP (10%) Offender's partner must be very careful to ensure that he takes no notice of the improper communication (Laws 74 and 16). If the TD later determines that he _did_ act on the basis of the UI, an adjusted score _is_ appropriate (Law 16). This one seems clear cut to me. I can't see how the offending player can argue that he "missed" the fact that he had a call coming, when he remembered (or read, from the bidding cards still on the table) enough of the auction to recognize he was on lead. If he wishes to so argue, a PP for violation of Law 74B1 (insufficient attention to the game). I might be persuaded otherwise if the player is DWS, who _always_ puts out the third pass card before picking up his bidding cards. But DWS would know better than to make the opening lead, and _then_ claim he still had a call, so we wouldn't be in this mess. :-) I tell 'em they have the right to appeal (Law 83, possibly Law 85B). These messes are caused by players paying insufficient attention to detail - and in particular, taking "shortcuts" instead of playing by the rules. And by the failure, at least in the ACBL, of TDs to take them to task for it. The way to put a stop to these problems is to deal with them severely, but fairly, the first time they come up, and every time after. Pretty soon, even Mrs. Guggenheim will get the message. How'd I do, guys? :-) 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/AwUBOW32aL2UW3au93vOEQKm1ACdEVa39pEHfpBcT+1C8cXAD6ocmAwAoItx PGxuEDrgQNgkjUI94PANbFv+ =q0Gl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 03:23:37 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 03:10:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA22535 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 03:10:43 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id x.8.7b19951 (4380); Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8.7b19951.269f51ea@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:10:02 EDT Subject: Re: Did anybody double? To: ereppert@rochester.rr.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 7/13/00 1:05:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > How'd I do, guys? :-) > > Regards, > > Ed OUTSTANDING!!!!!! Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 04:10:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:10:56 +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 EAA22763 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.176] (d185fc9b0.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.176]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16292 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:08:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dany Haimovici asks Herman De Wael: >Do you really believe that there is an actual difference between "partnership >experience" and "partnership understanding" ????????????????????? I do. My regular partner and I have a couple years "partnership experience", but she still doesn't understand my bidding! :-) 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/AwUBOW4GHr2UW3au93vOEQJooACghDi3VdGyH/MC31eB63hc+QVFdyYAni1l fZnvEKgOfIb0vhFTd2OhIezs =OMLc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 04:15:55 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:15:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA22811 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:15:48 +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 OAA27498; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:15:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk><39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:05:53 -0400 To: "olivier beauvillain" , "Liste Arbitrage" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:24 AM +0200 7/13/00, olivier beauvillain wrote: > I have a small story *not so incredible* for all those who thinks we are > still in the bidding period when *last* player to bid take back his >previous > bids to the box. > Bidding proceeds : > 1H 1S 2H 2S > 3H 3S 4H Pass > Pass ?? > Then the 1S*bidder who must bid now takes back 1S and 3S and put the SAce >on > the table. His LHO puts his 13 cards down (?dummy). Now he says "but I have > not bid on 4H, I want to bid 4S/Dbl". Here, by his actions, he showed that he intended to end the auction. A player who picks up his cards and leads is confirming that he believes the auction is over. If he followed proper procedure (leading face down, and asking partner whether there were any questions), then his partner has confirmed that picking up his cards is a way to end the auction. I can find several different laws which should deny the leader any gain. L72B1 is the obvious one; he could have known that by leading when the close of the auction was ambiguous, he would make it likely that dummy thought the auction was over. He is also in violation of L74C1; placing a green card on the table and picking up the cards already on the table are two different designations for the call "Pass". If proper procedure had been followed, he would have confirmed that both designations were valid in his partnership. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 05:23:43 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:48:52 +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 EAA23022 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:48:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.176] (d185fc9b0.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.176]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19674; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:41:40 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8.7b19951.269f51ea@aol.com> References: <8.7b19951.269f51ea@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:48:11 -0400 To: Schoderb@aol.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:10 PM -0400 7/13/00, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 7/13/00 1:05:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > >> How'd I do, guys? :-) >> >> Regards, >> >> Ed >OUTSTANDING!!!!!! Kojak Thank you, sir, very much. :-) 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/AwUBOW4PAL2UW3au93vOEQKzuQCgyO/Tdi0OeBFGZjor7sknV17jj+cAnA6Z QptY3Vw58GRSlb0f9vlhrU8n =ui8I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 06:42:14 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA23018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:47:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f132.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA23013 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 93951 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jul 2000 18:40:09 -0000 Message-ID: <20000713184009.93950.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:40:09 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:40:09 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael > > The problem is that after we do it a few times, it becomes "the system" >- > > 1H/S is 12+ with 5+ Clubs OR 0-5. This "becomes", over time, an >agreement. > >Yes, I am aware of that. >However, there is a difference. >Frequent same-type (deviations-psyches) create knowledge in >the partnership. In order for there to be a system change, >there has to be some sort of "aknowledgment" from partner - >catering. >But that is a well stated point of mine, I won't elaborate. This difference is not recognized by bridge law. I've already stated why it's a difficulty. >The difference between "psyche" and "system" is only >important on the level of L40D. If it is systemic, is it >allowed ? > >Now, why are weak openings - usually - banned ? >Because they bar the opponents, while the partnership can >cope. > >The H1H does also bar the opponents, yes, but the >partnership cannot cope. > >And so there is no real reason to ban the H1H. Coping may or may not be necessary. If without the ability to cope within the partnership, you can show that the action is favorable more than 50% of the time, you don't need to be able to cope. Of course, coping increases your odds, but it doesn't make this sort of bid any less advantageous. Also, risk factor of a psych is not a concept that the law recognizes. It's a daunting task to discern whether or not a particular bidding system allows opponents to cope or not. It's just as difficult as the problem of whether or not the system caters to itself. Since you defend roughly half the time, a system designed solely to keep opponents out of their best contract could win as many MP as a system designed solely to find your best contract. The former (while illegal for different reasons in the ACBL) does not necessarily cater to 8-card fits, 25+ HCP for game. At IMPs the problem is a little more difficult since -400/-300, -620/-500, -420/-300, -110/-1700 is no longer a 75% game, but -8 IMPs. There is no clear, objective way to determine whether or not a system caters to a habitual psyche or not, or whether opponents can cope. The lone -1700 you get every now and then is not sufficient to say that H1H should be allowed because your opponents can still do well. That's not the point. There are regulations which ban many forms of 2-way bids. I believe this is done because bridge is a complex game which the regulators want people to be able to solve at the table in the time specified. H1H is clearly a two-way bid even if the second meaning has a low incidence rate. Many players may not know what to do even if you told them what it means. >Why ever should this be any different if that first player >is that well-known CPU'er Herman ? Because revelation of the 'psych' leads to a UI problem. I believe at least these two criteria must be met. First, that the incidence of the psyche must be reasonably low. Otherwise, the bid has become mostly destructive. Second, that when the psych is revealed partner has no expectation for your hand's holdings based on the psychic bid. Otherwise, your partner has information which you will be unable to give to your opponents as well. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 08:15:06 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:15:06 +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 IAA23633 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:14:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9890 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2000 22:13:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.3.205) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 13 Jul 2000 22:13:06 -0000 Message-ID: <396E3F6E.A8DB3AB6@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:15:10 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Reppert CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Aha This is the unique exception confirming the great rule....... What a pity. Cheers dany Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dany Haimovici asks Herman De Wael: > > >Do you really believe that there is an actual difference between "partnership > >experience" and "partnership understanding" ????????????????????? > > I do. My regular partner and I have a couple years "partnership > experience", but she still doesn't understand my bidding! :-) > > 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/AwUBOW4GHr2UW3au93vOEQJooACghDi3VdGyH/MC31eB63hc+QVFdyYAni1l > fZnvEKgOfIb0vhFTd2OhIezs > =OMLc > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 08:35:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:35:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23700 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:35:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA25595 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:35:08 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000714083431.011a8e30@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:34:31 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: IMPORTANT ADMINISTRIVIA - BLML downtime "today" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Apologies for the short notice. There will be a short (hopefully) outage of BLML sometime today (Friday, business hours in Canberra, GMT+10 - work it out in your local terms :-) ). The venerable box octavia is being decommisioned, almost out from under from me, and I am moving everything to a new (well, another) machine. This will necessitate halting the blml list for a while as archives and aliases are transferred, and most importantly as the DNS is updated for the new machine to respond to the rgb.anu.edu.au address. I will also set up an alias so it responds to 'octavia' as well, for those of you using the wrong address for blml :-) I will send a note when it comes back up - if you try and send while the changeover is happening it should just be gracefully bounced back to you, or queued until the new machine responds. After that it should all work A-Ok again.... I hope. Apologies again, I hope you can cope without BLML for a short period :-) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 08:48:19 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:48:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23723 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:48:12 +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 13Crlx-000Duq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:48:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:48:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> 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 > >Dany Haimovici asks Herman De Wael: > >>Do you really believe that there is an actual difference between "partnership >>experience" and "partnership understanding" ????????????????????? > >I do. My regular partner and I have a couple years "partnership >experience", but she still doesn't understand my bidding! :-) But, Ed, the rest of us were talking about experience at bridge .... :) -- 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 Jul 14 17:08:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:08:02 +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 RAA26037 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:07:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.20] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13CzZB-000Gmc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:07:21 +0100 Message-ID: <011001bfed62$7ef31120$225408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> <396C9B70.2D4A5B65@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:38:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try > Noel & Pam wrote: > > > > "Personally, I'd love to open 1H/1S in 3rd seat with 0-5 or 12+ HCP and > > >=5c and have my partner give all the normal/systematic responses. I think > > that such a pre-emptive measure would be a winning bid, though I'm probably > > wrong about that too." ------------ \x/ ----------- > Yes, I am aware of that. > However, there is a difference. > Frequent same-type (deviations-psyches) create knowledge in > the partnership. In order for there to be a system change, > there has to be some sort of "aknowledgment" from partner - > catering. > But that is a well stated point of mine, I won't elaborate. > +=+ This statement avoids the fact that the relevant law is not about 'system' but about 'partnership understanding'. A partnership understanding can be, for example, that the player has a habit of psyching in given circumstances, even though the psyches are not all similar. It requires no acknowledgement whatsoever from partner for such an understanding to exist: it arises from his partnership experience. The Director may look at whatever evidence there may be to form his judgement - and it is the Director's judgement of the question 'does a partnership understanding exist?' (and the AC's) that determines the answer, not what the player believes, nor what he has acknowledged. +=+ > > The second part of Noel's reply is far more interesting : > > > Unfortunately, most zones have system restrictions - a bid like that is > > likely to be a HUM - and therefore banned in most levels of competition > > below national or international. I suspect that deep down, this the "evil" > > we are trying to combat - partnerships having undisclosed agreements about > > methods employed that are illegal in the competition in which they are > > playing. > > > > Exactly. > > Not deep down at all. > > The difference between "psyche" and "system" is only > important on the level of L40D. If it is systemic, is it > allowed ? > +=+ This statement could be misleading. Law 40D empowers the regulation of the *use* of conventions and the regulation of *partnership understandings* permitting initial actions at the one level to be made on hands less than a certain strength. See above for comment on 'partnership understanding'; 'use', of course, does not require an understanding or agreement to exist, it covers making the conventional call with or without a partnership understanding or agreement. +=+ --------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > > Or do you accept that the first is a psyche ? > +=+ This matters not at all when there is a partnership understanding about it and it may be a King or more below average strength (as initial action at the one level); nor does it matter when it fits the definition of 'convention'. These things may be regulated. Whilst we may never convince Herman personally, although he has to abide by the authorized view in an AC or as a Director, it is quite important that no-one around the world should read his arguments and act upon them. Go to your NBO for guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 20:09:38 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:09:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28336 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:09:31 +1000 (EST) From: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au Received: from Debug (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01261 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:09:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007141009.UAA01261@acsys.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: ... not yet.... Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:09:30 Australia/NSW X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.20 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok - things didn't quite run smoothly, so the BLML outage has been postponed to Monday (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Avagoodweekendall. Cheers, Markus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 21:21:45 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:21:45 +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 VAA28938 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:21:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.63]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19695 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:21:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396D9092.13273B70@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:49:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <200007122204.SAA10735@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > I'm also curious about my example of 1NT on 10 points. The real > agreement was 10-12, but the convention card said 15-17. Is the 1NT > bid itself illegal? Here there is no doubt of a L40B violation, but > everyone who posted wanted to adjust only for MI, not for an illegal > bid. In other words, they would adjust only if the opponents might > have entered the auction had they known the true range, not if the 1NT > bid itself caused damage. Is this wrong? No it's not. It's simply an illustration of why it is wrong to ban a psyche (if judged systemic) by means of L40A. We don't do it for other systemic, undisclosed bids, so why would we do it in the case of a psyche. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 14 21:21:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:21:44 +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 VAA28937 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:21:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.63]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19687 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396D8F6E.36273881@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:44:14 +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: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969A880.19D6FF04@village.uunet.be> <008501bfea7f$3aa807e0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF188.6642F846@village.uunet.be> <396C5FD1.7A862206@village.uunet.be> <004201bfec48$cc045660$7a5408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "To innovate is not to reform." - Edmund Burke > ================================= > > > > Please create regulations that are enforcible. > > This one isn't. > > > +=+ Does it ever occur to you, after you > have made one of these 'psyches', to call > the Director at the end of the hand and > say to him: "In the auction I opened 1H > on this hand. My partner knows I do > this kind of thing every so often"? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Since in many of those tournaments I would also be the TD, yes I have called the TD. Or anyone else who might care to listen. When I am not the TD, of course I call him. And I also tell the largest collection of TD's possible. (that's y'all, you know) I don't think anyone can accuse me of not providing the TD staff with a full explanation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 00:45:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:45:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00546 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:45:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.180]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09851 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396EFC91.1498C47A@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:42:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Hi Herman > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > > Different problem. > > > > That's simply the use of valid knowledge : partnership > > experience. > > This is AI. > > > > As stated, IMO, the fact of the existence of partnership > > experience does not create an agreement ! > > IMHO you crossed the RED RUBICON !!!!!! > > Do you really believe that there is an actual difference between "partnership > experience" and "partnership understanding" ????????????????????? > Sorry Dany, of course there is ! That sould be beyond question. Example : "My partner has NEVER psyched before in his entire career". This is partnership experience. I hope you are not suggesting that it is also partnership agreement. Very certainly there is a difference between the two. Our problem remains whether the H1H is only experience or also agreement, but please accept that it can be the one without the other ! - Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 00:45:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:45:26 +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 AAA00554 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:45:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.180]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09875 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:45:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396F0AA9.E4988330@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:42:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000713184009.93950.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > Coping may or may not be necessary. If without the ability to cope > within the partnership, you can show that the action is favorable more than > 50% of the time, you don't need to be able to cope. I fail to see what success rate has got to do with it. Besides, I would not claim that my success rate is over 50%. > Of course, coping > increases your odds, but it doesn't make this sort of bid any less > advantageous. Also, risk factor of a psych is not a concept that the law > recognizes. We are not talking Law, we are trying to establish criteria. > It's a daunting task to discern whether or not a particular bidding > system allows opponents to cope or not. I don't see why opponents should be able to cope ? > It's just as difficult as the > problem of whether or not the system caters to itself. Since you defend > roughly half the time, a system designed solely to keep opponents out of > their best contract could win as many MP as a system designed solely to find > your best contract. Are you trying to ban the 4Sp opening now ? > The former (while illegal for different reasons in the > ACBL) does not necessarily cater to 8-card fits, 25+ HCP for game. At IMPs > the problem is a little more difficult since -400/-300, -620/-500, > -420/-300, -110/-1700 is no longer a 75% game, but -8 IMPs. There is no > clear, objective way to determine whether or not a system caters to a > habitual psyche or not, or whether opponents can cope. The lone -1700 you > get every now and then is not sufficient to say that H1H should be allowed > because your opponents can still do well. That's not the point. > Well, I believe it is exactly why random-2's are banned, but 4Sp openings not. Very clearly a point. > There are regulations which ban many forms of 2-way bids. I believe > this is done because bridge is a complex game which the regulators want > people to be able to solve at the table in the time specified. H1H is > clearly a two-way bid even if the second meaning has a low incidence rate. I fail to see why you should write 'clearly'. I don't find it clear at all. I have never yet in this thread written anything so apparently sure of myself. I don't think you should do so. > Many players may not know what to do even if you told them what it means. > They don't seem to have any problems with it, even if I don't tell them what it means. > >Why ever should this be any different if that first player > >is that well-known CPU'er Herman ? > > Because revelation of the 'psych' leads to a UI problem. I believe at > least these two criteria must be met. UI is not a problem, as we have often stated. It is only a problem because they won't let me give correct info to opponents. > First, that the incidence of the > psyche must be reasonably low. Otherwise, the bid has become mostly > destructive. Is once every three months reasonably low enough ? > Second, that when the psych is revealed partner has no > expectation for your hand's holdings based on the psychic bid. Well, that is simply an unusable rule. I won't be badgered into making other psyches simply because my psyching habits exist. My habits exist. Am I bound to make other psyches, or no psyches at all simply because my habits exist ? That is what you are saying ! Please realise people, that this is what you are all saying. Because I have made a particular type of psyche thrice before, I am banned from making it ever again. No-one has yet produced any other reason why I should be ruled against the next time I open a H1H. Not a single one. > Otherwise, > your partner has information which you will be unable to give to your > opponents as well. > But my partner has that information (or not - but he could have). He cannot undo that knowledge. What am I to do ? Please look at this from my point. I am trying to figure out what I should do. I am willing to keep systemic catch-methods out of my system. I am willing to disclose to opponents. But I am not willing to be banned from what I still believe is psyching. Nor am I willing to produce the occasional other psyche just in order to do the one I want to do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 00:45:23 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:45:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00550 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:45:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.180]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09861 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:45:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <396F065E.3837091D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:23:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> <396C9B70.2D4A5B65@village.uunet.be> <011001bfed62$7ef31120$225408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan has produced another one of his masterful posts. Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Frequent same-type (deviations-psyches) create knowledge in > > the partnership. In order for there to be a system change, > > there has to be some sort of "aknowledgment" from partner - > > catering. > > But that is a well stated point of mine, I won't elaborate. > > > +=+ This statement avoids the fact that the relevant law is > not about 'system' but about 'partnership understanding'. I was presuming we all know what we are talking about. It is sad that the Laws are written not with the word system, but rather with the words "partnership understanding" in one place and "agreement" in some other. The WBFLC have never really established whether they consider both terms to cover the same idea or not, and if not, what the difference is between the one and the other. As long as that problem remains, we shall continue to talk about "systemic" and not know what this means either. > A partnership understanding can be, for example, that the > player has a habit of psyching in given circumstances, even > though the psyches are not all similar. It requires no > acknowledgement whatsoever from partner for such an > understanding to exist: it arises from his partnership > experience. OK, in that form, we might construe that there are three levels : Partnership exerience, which gives rise to partnership understanding, which is different from partnership agreement. What I believe Grattan is saying here is that the H1H has passed from partnership experience into the realm of partnership understanding, which means that the use must be disclosed. That was what I had been saying all along, through some other way. Is he also saying that because it is "understanding", it has become bannable for the purpose of L40D ? Then what we really need is a better understanding of what has in fact been banned - and this discussion is not about the Laws at all. > The Director may look at whatever evidence > there may be to form his judgement - and it is the > Director's judgement of the question 'does a partnership > understanding exist?' (and the AC's) that determines the > answer, not what the player believes, nor what he has > acknowledged. +=+ Yes Grattan, true, but this list is a forum of Tournament Directors. We are here to determine what evidence the TD should use in his judgement. > > > > The difference between "psyche" and "system" is only > > important on the level of L40D. If it is systemic, is it > > allowed ? > > > +=+ This statement could be misleading. Law 40D > empowers the regulation of the *use* of conventions > and the regulation of *partnership understandings* > permitting initial actions at the one level to be made > on hands less than a certain strength. Law 40D "empowers". That is not the same as saying L40D "bans". The different regulations around the world all use different words. Which words should we use, and how should we interpret them, with regards to systemic psyches ? It is not because something is deemed partnership understanding, that it has also become partnership agreement (or whatever word is used) for the use of regulations. > See above for > comment on 'partnership understanding'; 'use', of > course, does not require an understanding or > agreement to exist, it covers making the conventional > call with or without a partnership understanding or > agreement. +=+ Sorry Grattan, 'use' is next to 'of bidding conventions'. It is not the use of the H1H that can be banned, but the use of a system incorporating the H1H. Whether or not my system incorporates the H1H is under discussion. > --------------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > > > > Or do you accept that the first is a psyche ? > > > +=+ This matters not at all when there is a > partnership understanding about it and it may > be a King or more below average strength (as > initial action at the one level); nor does it matter > when it fits the definition of 'convention'. These > things may be regulated. Whilst we may > never convince Herman personally, although he > has to abide by the authorized view in an AC or > as a Director, it is quite important that no-one > around the world should read his arguments > and act upon them. Go to your NBO for > guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 01:53:44 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:53:44 +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 BAA00793 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:53:37 +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 NNY0WDV1; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:53:29 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:55:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Back Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Back from visiting relatives. Grandcat Caruso is still my wife's favorite grandchild. Is End of Law 68B done? REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 03:56:02 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from magnolia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.62]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01214 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:55:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from andira.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.152) by magnolia.wanadoo.fr; 14 Jul 2000 19:55:43 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.154.92) by andira.wanadoo.fr; 14 Jul 2000 19:55:30 +0200 Message-ID: <008001bfedbd$2fd8c340$5c9afac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com><7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk><39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be><8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk><01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> Subject: Re: Did anybody double? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:58:58 +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 OK I agree for the "smalls" procedural errors, I could have done without ("lead" face down, just saying I have not bid but not telling what...) So now I hope that everybody agree that taking back the previous bids to the box is (apart from a procedural error) the same thing that taking one more pass on the others and taking them all back. If you don't, you have to "accept" my story, and even if taking back the bids is only "intention to pass", it's not a pass and you have to give a right to bid, witch I don't want, definitively. In our original case, declarer "didn't see" the dbl, but when he takes back his bids, he his "passing". He MUST pay attention to what appenned (Partner's pass of a splinter is enough unusual to wake up you, don't you think?). So for me, by now, he can only complain for ... not paying attention to the game. Too bad, too late. Happy holydays A+OB ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 6:54 PM Subject: Re: Did anybody double? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > "olivier beauvillain" writes: > > >I have a small story *not so incredible* for all those who thinks we are > > still in the bidding period when *last* player to bid take back his > >previous bids to the box. > > Well, my partner accuses me of being reckless, so I'll take a shot at > this one. :-) > > > Bidding proceeds : > > 1H 1S 2H 2S > > 3H 3S 4H Pass > > Pass ?? > > Then the 1S*bidder who must bid now takes back 1S and 3S and put the SAce > >on the table. > > Two procedural errors: failure to put out a pass card, and failure to > lead face down (or did he lead face down?) > > > His LHO puts his 13 cards down (?dummy). Now he says "but I have > > not bid on 4H, I want to bid 4S/Dbl". > > It is preposterous that a player would expect to be able to (1) pick > up his bidding cards, (2) make an opening lead, and (3) see the > dummy, and _then_ suggest he still has a call coming. And by saying > what he wants to call, he's passed UI to his partner, another > infraction. > > > > If you let him do that, says he bid 4S, his RHO is out of bid for > >one round (L24C) > > I don't think so. Law 24 starts "when the Director determines, during > the auction, that because of a player's action, one or more cards of > that player's hand were in a position for the face to be seen by his > partner..." If it were me, I'd rule that the action that caused > "dummy" to expose his hand was not _his_, but that of the player who > made the opening lead, and then, _after_ dummy was exposed, tried to > rescind it. So 24C does not apply - "dummy's" cards were exposed > because of an _opponent's_ action, not because of his own. In fact, > it seems the led spade ace is going to cause a problem for "leader's" > partner, who now must pass his partner's bid or double (if TD allows > the bid or double - I wouldn't), which may damage opponents. > > > > and LHO must guess directly between Pass/5H/Dbl. If LHO pass/dbl > >over 4S, then the contract is 4S(X) > >and LHO plays with 13 exposed cards. He can also double, whitch can > >be right when he see dummy!! > > No. See above. > > > The TD cannot throw the board with a 60/60 (or 60/40). What's your ruling? > > How to you feel this one? > > I hope not to have that one at the table! > > So would I. As I've said here before "I am only an egg," but I would > rule as follows: > > The failure to put out a pass card is a violation of procedure (SO/ZO > regulation). PP (Warning) > The Ace of Spades is the opening lead. Making it face up is a > violation of law 41A. PP (Warning) > The opening lead may not be withdrawn (see Law 47). > The statement that "I want to bid 4S/Dbl " is improper communication > (Law 74). PP (10%) > Offender's partner must be very careful to ensure that he takes no > notice of the improper communication (Laws 74 and 16). If the TD > later determines that he _did_ act on the basis of the UI, an > adjusted score _is_ appropriate (Law 16). > > This one seems clear cut to me. I can't see how the offending player > can argue that he "missed" the fact that he had a call coming, when > he remembered (or read, from the bidding cards still on the table) > enough of the auction to recognize he was on lead. If he wishes to so > argue, a PP for violation of Law 74B1 (insufficient attention to the > game). I might be persuaded otherwise if the player is DWS, who > _always_ puts out the third pass card before picking up his bidding > cards. But DWS would know better than to make the opening lead, and > _then_ claim he still had a call, so we wouldn't be in this mess. :-) > > I tell 'em they have the right to appeal (Law 83, possibly Law 85B). > > > These messes are caused by players paying insufficient attention to > detail - and in particular, taking "shortcuts" instead of playing by > the rules. And by the failure, at least in the ACBL, of TDs to take > them to task for it. The way to put a stop to these problems is to > deal with them severely, but fairly, the first time they come up, and > every time after. Pretty soon, even Mrs. Guggenheim will get the > message. > > > How'd I do, guys? :-) > > 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/AwUBOW32aL2UW3au93vOEQKm1ACdEVa39pEHfpBcT+1C8cXAD6ocmAwAoItx > PGxuEDrgQNgkjUI94PANbFv+ > =q0Gl > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 05:24:57 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 05:24:57 +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 FAA01472 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 05:24:50 +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 13DB4e-000FUd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:24:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:12:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: ... not yet.... References: <200007141009.UAA01261@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200007141009.UAA01261@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus wrote: > >Ok - things didn't quite run smoothly, so the BLML outage has been postponed to >Monday (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Avagoodweekendall. G'bye all .......... -- 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 Sat Jul 15 08:44:26 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:44:26 +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 IAA01903 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:44:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13DEBf-0001Ar-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:44:03 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000715003730.00f70a50@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:37:30 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: <008001bfedbd$2fd8c340$5c9afac1@cllubintplord> References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:58 PM 7/14/00 +0200, you wrote: >OK >I agree for the "smalls" procedural errors, I could have done without >("lead" face down, just saying I have not bid but not telling what...) > >So now I hope that everybody agree that taking back the previous bids to the >box is (apart from a procedural error) the same thing that taking one more >pass on the others and taking them all back. If you don't, you have to >"accept" my story, and even if taking back the bids is only "intention to >pass", it's not a pass and you have to give a right to bid, witch I don't >want, definitively. >In our original case, declarer "didn't see" the dbl, but when he takes back >his bids, he his "passing". He MUST pay attention to what appenned >(Partner's pass of a splinter is enough unusual to wake up you, don't you >think?). So for me, by now, he can only complain for ... not paying >attention to the game. Too bad, too late. well, i said that a rather long time ago and david and herman didnt accept this point of view. so i may presume you are in my camp? The real problem is of course the wording of 17e. In this case there havent been 3 passes (let alone one pass). That - i think - too is davids problem. Anyway, i must say i have sympathy for his point of view (although its not mine) To be honest, he has a point to make; nevertheless, 21B gives the TD the discretion to act accordingly i think. regards, anton >Happy holydays >A+OB > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ed Reppert >To: Bridge Laws >Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 6:54 PM >Subject: Re: Did anybody double? > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> "olivier beauvillain" writes: >> >> >I have a small story *not so incredible* for all those who thinks we are >> > still in the bidding period when *last* player to bid take back his >> >previous bids to the box. >> >> Well, my partner accuses me of being reckless, so I'll take a shot at >> this one. :-) >> >> > Bidding proceeds : >> > 1H 1S 2H 2S >> > 3H 3S 4H Pass >> > Pass ?? >> > Then the 1S*bidder who must bid now takes back 1S and 3S and put the >SAce >> >on the table. >> >> Two procedural errors: failure to put out a pass card, and failure to >> lead face down (or did he lead face down?) >> >> > His LHO puts his 13 cards down (?dummy). Now he says "but I have >> > not bid on 4H, I want to bid 4S/Dbl". >> >> It is preposterous that a player would expect to be able to (1) pick >> up his bidding cards, (2) make an opening lead, and (3) see the >> dummy, and _then_ suggest he still has a call coming. And by saying >> what he wants to call, he's passed UI to his partner, another >> infraction. >> >> >> > If you let him do that, says he bid 4S, his RHO is out of bid for >> >one round (L24C) >> >> I don't think so. Law 24 starts "when the Director determines, during >> the auction, that because of a player's action, one or more cards of >> that player's hand were in a position for the face to be seen by his >> partner..." If it were me, I'd rule that the action that caused >> "dummy" to expose his hand was not _his_, but that of the player who >> made the opening lead, and then, _after_ dummy was exposed, tried to >> rescind it. So 24C does not apply - "dummy's" cards were exposed >> because of an _opponent's_ action, not because of his own. In fact, >> it seems the led spade ace is going to cause a problem for "leader's" >> partner, who now must pass his partner's bid or double (if TD allows >> the bid or double - I wouldn't), which may damage opponents. >> >> >> > and LHO must guess directly between Pass/5H/Dbl. If LHO pass/dbl >> >over 4S, then the contract is 4S(X) >> >and LHO plays with 13 exposed cards. He can also double, whitch can >> >be right when he see dummy!! >> >> No. See above. >> >> > The TD cannot throw the board with a 60/60 (or 60/40). What's your >ruling? >> > How to you feel this one? >> > I hope not to have that one at the table! >> >> So would I. As I've said here before "I am only an egg," but I would >> rule as follows: >> >> The failure to put out a pass card is a violation of procedure (SO/ZO >> regulation). PP (Warning) >> The Ace of Spades is the opening lead. Making it face up is a >> violation of law 41A. PP (Warning) >> The opening lead may not be withdrawn (see Law 47). >> The statement that "I want to bid 4S/Dbl " is improper communication >> (Law 74). PP (10%) >> Offender's partner must be very careful to ensure that he takes no >> notice of the improper communication (Laws 74 and 16). If the TD >> later determines that he _did_ act on the basis of the UI, an >> adjusted score _is_ appropriate (Law 16). >> >> This one seems clear cut to me. I can't see how the offending player >> can argue that he "missed" the fact that he had a call coming, when >> he remembered (or read, from the bidding cards still on the table) >> enough of the auction to recognize he was on lead. If he wishes to so >> argue, a PP for violation of Law 74B1 (insufficient attention to the >> game). I might be persuaded otherwise if the player is DWS, who >> _always_ puts out the third pass card before picking up his bidding >> cards. But DWS would know better than to make the opening lead, and >> _then_ claim he still had a call, so we wouldn't be in this mess. :-) >> >> I tell 'em they have the right to appeal (Law 83, possibly Law 85B). >> >> >> These messes are caused by players paying insufficient attention to >> detail - and in particular, taking "shortcuts" instead of playing by >> the rules. And by the failure, at least in the ACBL, of TDs to take >> them to task for it. The way to put a stop to these problems is to >> deal with them severely, but fairly, the first time they come up, and >> every time after. Pretty soon, even Mrs. Guggenheim will get the >> message. >> >> >> How'd I do, guys? :-) >> >> 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/AwUBOW32aL2UW3au93vOEQKm1ACdEVa39pEHfpBcT+1C8cXAD6ocmAwAoItx >> PGxuEDrgQNgkjUI94PANbFv+ >> =q0Gl >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 09:27:17 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:27:17 +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 JAA01971 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:27:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13DErD-0003np-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:26:59 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000715012026.00f6e468@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:20:26 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Did anybody double? In-Reply-To: References: <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:54 PM 7/13/00 -0400, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >"olivier beauvillain" writes: > >>I have a small story *not so incredible* for all those who thinks we are >> still in the bidding period when *last* player to bid take back his >>previous bids to the box. > >Well, my partner accuses me of being reckless, so I'll take a shot at >this one. :-) > >> Bidding proceeds : >> 1H 1S 2H 2S >> 3H 3S 4H Pass >> Pass ?? >> Then the 1S*bidder who must bid now takes back 1S and 3S and put the SAce >>on the table. > >Two procedural errors: failure to put out a pass card, and failure to >lead face down (or did he lead face down?) > >> His LHO puts his 13 cards down (?dummy). Now he says "but I have >> not bid on 4H, I want to bid 4S/Dbl". > >It is preposterous that a player would expect to be able to (1) pick >up his bidding cards, (2) make an opening lead, and (3) see the >dummy, and _then_ suggest he still has a call coming. And by saying >what he wants to call, he's passed UI to his partner, another >infraction. > > >> If you let him do that, says he bid 4S, his RHO is out of bid for >>one round (L24C) > >I don't think so. Law 24 starts "when the Director determines, during >the auction, that because of a player's action, one or more cards of >that player's hand were in a position for the face to be seen by his >partner..." If it were me, I'd rule that the action that caused >"dummy" to expose his hand was not _his_, but that of the player who >made the opening lead, and then, _after_ dummy was exposed, tried to >rescind it. So 24C does not apply - "dummy's" cards were exposed >because of an _opponent's_ action, not because of his own. In fact, >it seems the led spade ace is going to cause a problem for "leader's" >partner, who now must pass his partner's bid or double (if TD allows >the bid or double - I wouldn't), which may damage opponents. > > >> and LHO must guess directly between Pass/5H/Dbl. If LHO pass/dbl >>over 4S, then the contract is 4S(X) >>and LHO plays with 13 exposed cards. He can also double, whitch can >>be right when he see dummy!! > >No. See above. > >> The TD cannot throw the board with a 60/60 (or 60/40). What's your ruling? >> How to you feel this one? >> I hope not to have that one at the table! > >So would I. As I've said here before "I am only an egg," but I would >rule as follows: > >The failure to put out a pass card is a violation of procedure (SO/ZO >regulation). PP (Warning) >The Ace of Spades is the opening lead. Making it face up is a >violation of law 41A. PP (Warning) >The opening lead may not be withdrawn (see Law 47). >The statement that "I want to bid 4S/Dbl " is improper communication >(Law 74). PP (10%) >Offender's partner must be very careful to ensure that he takes no >notice of the improper communication (Laws 74 and 16). If the TD >later determines that he _did_ act on the basis of the UI, an >adjusted score _is_ appropriate (Law 16). > >This one seems clear cut to me. I can't see how the offending player >can argue that he "missed" the fact that he had a call coming, when >he remembered (or read, from the bidding cards still on the table) >enough of the auction to recognize he was on lead. If he wishes to so >argue, a PP for violation of Law 74B1 (insufficient attention to the >game). I might be persuaded otherwise if the player is DWS, who >_always_ puts out the third pass card before picking up his bidding >cards. But DWS would know better than to make the opening lead, and >_then_ claim he still had a call, so we wouldn't be in this mess. :-) > >I tell 'em they have the right to appeal (Law 83, possibly Law 85B). > > >These messes are caused by players paying insufficient attention to >detail - and in particular, taking "shortcuts" instead of playing by >the rules. And by the failure, at least in the ACBL, of TDs to take >them to task for it. The way to put a stop to these problems is to >deal with them severely, but fairly, the first time they come up, and >every time after. Pretty soon, even Mrs. Guggenheim will get the >message. > > >How'd I do, guys? :-) > well, to be very honest; i would look the guy/girl deep in the eyes and apply 91A and kick the person out of the club/tournament and report it to the NCBO. he/she probably will be suspended for life from playing bridge i hope. I at least think this should be the only response from a real TD (i hope - probably in vain) regards, anton >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/AwUBOW32aL2UW3au93vOEQKm1ACdEVa39pEHfpBcT+1C8cXAD6ocmAwAoItx >PGxuEDrgQNgkjUI94PANbFv+ >=q0Gl >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 11:23:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:40 +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 KAA02208 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:26 +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 13DG16-0004HI-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:41:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:24:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> <396C9B70.2D4A5B65@village.uunet.be> <011001bfed62$7ef31120$225408c3@dodona> <396F065E.3837091D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <396F065E.3837091D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> The Director may look at whatever evidence >> there may be to form his judgement - and it is the >> Director's judgement of the question 'does a partnership >> understanding exist?' (and the AC's) that determines the >> answer, not what the player believes, nor what he has >> acknowledged. +=+ >Yes Grattan, true, but this list is a forum of Tournament >Directors. >We are here to determine what evidence the TD should use in >his judgement. This list is a forum of people interested in the Laws of bridge. Several of our readers are not TDs. We should not forget such readers, and not all our discussion should be solely to decide what TDs should do. -- 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 Sat Jul 15 12:17:15 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02229 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:43 +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 13DG1A-0004HI-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:41:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: My Bridgepage and Lawspage [advert] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apart from a full list of articles throughout the site I have now added a list of authors, so you can look through it to see if your favourite correspondent is there. I still like to see new articles. So, please, if you have a nice interesting article, would you like to offer it to me? As far as links are concerned I tend not to go looking for them anymore. I do not, for example, tend to look at other sites advertised on this newsgroup. However, if you want a link to your site, just go to the Submit-a-Link section on my Bridgepage, and submit it. I have turned down only two sites amongst the hundred or so offered. Addresses Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm Homepage: http://blakjak.com Authors: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/alphb_ai.htm Submit-a-Link: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_lnk3.htm#submit If you have a site that is mainly about the Laws of Bridge then just go to the Submit-a-Link section on my Lawspage, and submit it. Submit-a-Link: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lnks.htm#submit -- 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 Sat Jul 15 12:23:54 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:42:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02250 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:42:07 +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 13DG1S-00059G-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:41:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:26:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: White book et al MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Occasionally I have referred to the EBU's White book, sadly out of print and out of date! It is still an excellent place to find goodies like tie-splitting procedures and what is a standard PP. When we have had requests from the Caribbean and South Africa for advice on how to deal with scores when players are thrown out of tourneys, it is to the White book we have gone. There are a couple of authorities around the world who make reference to our White book for things for which they have no regulations. Thanks to a lot of work by John Probst and various staff at Aylesbury [and a very little work by me!] it is now available on the EBU website for download as an Acrobat file. If you cannot read Acrobat files then the Acrobat reader is also there for download. Of course, the Orange book is also there, both as an Acrobat download and a link to Neils Wendell Pedersen's excellent HTML version. I have also made sure that the EBU has screen regs and they are available: has its normal Level 5 regs available: has its recommended Disabled regs available [as approved and amended by BLML!]: has amendments to the Orange book available. Where is this wealth of information? http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec Enjoy! -- 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 Sat Jul 15 13:15:20 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:58 +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 KAA02228 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:42 +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 13DG1F-0003Vq-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:41:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:39:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: ... not yet.... References: <200007141009.UAA01261@acsys.anu.edu.au> 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 >Markus wrote: >> >>Ok - things didn't quite run smoothly, so the BLML outage has been postponed to >>Monday (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Avagoodweekendall. > > G'bye all .......... > This thread seems a good place to post some trivia. DWS and I are going to be at a training weekend till Sunday pm along with about 20 other EBU TD's. (He's doing the training, I'll be receiving it and arguing with him). I shall take my laptop and post seditious messages while we're there :)). btw Herman and I arranged a simultaneous to celebrate Bastille day between the Squeeze in Antwerp and the YC in London this evening. This is because we are *not* French. I added an extra condition of contest: The French players were not allowed to ask the range of the opponent's NT, and the English were allowed to use the French defence to the French players' 1NT openers. This was well received, and the results will be on Herman's web-site sometime next week, and will be scored overall using Bastille Imps. c y'all Sunday night. 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 Jul 15 13:16:12 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02212 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:41:28 +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 13DG16-0004HJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:41:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:28:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Did anybody double? References: <016d01bfe80e$d5f2ab60$dbe236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7+HqajA8nnZ5EwA6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <39683A95.F89180@village.uunet.be> <8TV0wiAY1va5Ewah@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01ec01bfecac$2e20e120$4190fac1@cllubintplord> <008001bfedbd$2fd8c340$5c9afac1@cllubintplord> In-Reply-To: <008001bfedbd$2fd8c340$5c9afac1@cllubintplord> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk olivier beauvillain wrote: >OK >I agree for the "smalls" procedural errors, I could have done without >("lead" face down, just saying I have not bid but not telling what...) > >So now I hope that everybody agree that taking back the previous bids to the >box is (apart from a procedural error) the same thing that taking one more >pass on the others and taking them all back. If you don't, you have to >"accept" my story, and even if taking back the bids is only "intention to >pass", it's not a pass and you have to give a right to bid, witch I don't >want, definitively. No. Each case is to be looked at on its merits. When a player has not passed you should not be saying he has passed because another unethical player in a totally dissimilar situation may try to cheat - and not succeed because we can deal with him under other Laws. >In our original case, declarer "didn't see" the dbl, but when he takes back >his bids, he his "passing". He MUST pay attention to what appenned >(Partner's pass of a splinter is enough unusual to wake up you, don't you >think?). So for me, by now, he can only complain for ... not paying >attention to the game. Too bad, too late. I agree that he should pay attention to the game but that does not mean he has passed. -- 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 Sat Jul 15 16:50:13 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:50:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03040 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:50:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.17] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13DLln-0000TN-00; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:49:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bfee29$38c88b40$115908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <200007141009.UAA01261@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: ... not yet.... Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:51:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 1:39 AM Subject: Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: ... not yet.... > > > This thread seems a good place to post some trivia. > > DWS and I are going to be at a training weekend till Sunday pm along > with about 20 other EBU TD's. (He's doing the training, I'll be > receiving it and arguing with him). I shall take my laptop and post > seditious messages while we're there :)). > +=+ On the Sunday it is arranged for me to drop in. I hope to pick up some novel thoughts on subjects that could crop up in meetings in Maastricht. And maybe a few extra examples for the CoP Jurisprudence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 15 22:29:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA03973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:29:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA03967 for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:29:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22398 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2000 12:27:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.6.38) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 15 Jul 2000 12:27:25 -0000 Message-ID: <3970592E.8CD73E9@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 15:29:34 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <8fS0DXBFoza5Ew6b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <396C6065.67D2009@village.uunet.be> <396DF4FD.5364570F@inter.net.il> <396EFC91.1498C47A@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Herman I don't speak about theoretical (I don't like "lawyering" when discuss with you) difference. I mean for regular reasonable people...... It makes no difference for them how do you define the event which pushed them almost vomit........... Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > > Hi Herman > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Different problem. > > > > > > That's simply the use of valid knowledge : partnership > > > experience. > > > This is AI. > > > > > > As stated, IMO, the fact of the existence of partnership > > > experience does not create an agreement ! > > > > IMHO you crossed the RED RUBICON !!!!!! > > > > Do you really believe that there is an actual difference between "partnership > > experience" and "partnership understanding" ????????????????????? > > > > Sorry Dany, of course there is ! > > That sould be beyond question. > > Example : > > "My partner has NEVER psyched before in his entire career". > > This is partnership experience. > > I hope you are not suggesting that it is also partnership > agreement. > > Very certainly there is a difference between the two. > > Our problem remains whether the H1H is only experience or > also agreement, but please accept that it can be the one > without the other ! > > - > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 16 05:15:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 05:15:35 +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 FAA04973 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 05:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87679 invoked for bounce); 15 Jul 2000 19:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.111) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 15 Jul 2000 19:15:12 -0000 Message-ID: <016b01bfee91$2ec9a9e0$54291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <000701bfeb5c$b8c378c0$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> <396C6164.9229002E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:15:39 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > What else can system be than "partner treats this as ..." ? > > > > "The following hands will be opened with 1H: ..." > > That's your system with respect to your 1H opener. > > > > "Partner's will respond to 1H as follows: ..." > > That's your system with respect to partner's responses. > > But there is no difference. There is only one "system". The 'system' splits into a plethora of individual agreements on indiviual bids, general approach, style, common bidding situations, and so on. Your agreements on responses of a 1H opener do not determine your 1H opener, your 1H opener rather is determined by your agreements on the 1H opener itself (which usually will not be completely out of synch with your agreements on responses, of course). Example: My partnership's responses to our 2S opener are - 2NT: either D fit or strong - 3C wants to play 3C opposite a weak club onesuiter. - 3D/H/S 6 card suit, invitational values, 3+ controls Now try to guess the 'meaning' of the 2S opener ;-) > > I can agree that 1NT shows 10-12, and partner nevertheless has > > to raise to 3NT on any flat 12 count. The agreement > > on partner's responses does not change the 1NT opener > > into a 12-14. > > > > So the "system" is : "raise on any flat 12 count". Yes. > That seems synonimous to me to "12-14". No, it isn't. > Then if you say it is 10-12, you are simply lying. Nothing in the law prevents me from playing 10-12 and 'raise on any flat 12 count' *at*the*same*time*. [Side note: I know one world champion pair who played 7-15 limited openers and 'responder forces to game on any 13HCP hand'. They did in fact open 7 and 8 HCP hands so frequently and successfully, that a regulations change to 'rule of 18 for 1 level openers' was rumoured to have been designed against this one partnership.] > Especially if you happen to have opened on 13. Hey, I psyched ;-) > > > If everything that you do is considered systemic, then there > > > can be no such thing as a psyche. > > > > A psyche is a gross deviation from your system. > > Exactly my point. If everything is considered system, how > can there be deviations. Only those deviations which are not based on implicit or explicit partnership agreements are not part of the system. > > Your system consists of your explicit and implicit > > agreements. Your reproducible actions do form implicit > > agreements, habitual psyches become part of your system > > (see also L75B). > > Random psyches are not part of your system > > Here we are back at the random part. Another criterium I > have frequently shown to be impracticable. I agree that this criterium is impracticable. However, "although I always open those hands with one heart I do not consider those hands to be part of my system" is an even more impracticable approach. Reminds me of that guy who opened *every* hand in 3rd seat at green, but their partnership still claimed that their 'system' was that 3rd seat openers are the same as first seat openers, and indeed his wife *never* psyched. [Well, 10 years later she psyched for the first time and caught him completely off guard :-))).] > > > Then we can simply write > > > L40D as : it is forbidden to open on less than ... The Laws > > > are not written this way, and so it is incorrect to > > > interpret them as if they were. > > > > It is not forbidden to psyche a 1H opener in 3rd seat. > > > > Which is what I do. > And you forbid it, merely on the fact that I have done it > before. I am not forbidding it on the fact that you have done it before, I am forbidding it because - you always make the H1H psyche with a defined set of hands and - your partner does not make the H1H psyche - two-way 1 level openers which include subminimum openers are HUM If you get 50 potential H1H/H1S hands per year and psyche only 5 of them and pass the rest, I see no problem. You would, however, 'psyche' 45 of them, and this makes the bid systemic. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 05:29:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:29:53 +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 FAA07114 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 05:29:45 +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 PAA08817 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA25335 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:29:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007161929.PAA25335@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jack Rhind > [South] wants redress as a result if > both an incorrect explanation and his own bad bid. That is why in this > particular case I would allow the result to stand for N/S but penalize > E/W. [It will help most of us if posters remember to limit line lengths of original material to 72 characters. I'm not sure what happened to the subject line of this thread, but subject lines should be left unchanged unless intentionally changed for a new topic.] Just how bad do you want a call or play to be before the NOS is denied redress? The world standard (now adopted in North America, too, I think I recall seeing) is "irrational, wild, or gambling." Ordinary bridge mistakes do not fall into these categories. If you think South's 3NT bid is irrational -- given the MI he had -- then by all means let NS keep the table result. A minor technical point is that you adjust the score for EW under L12C2; you don't change their score by giving a PP. (Of course you can give a PP in addition if one is merited.) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 06:31:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 06:31:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07193 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 06:31:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA15246 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA26070 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:31:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007162031.QAA26070@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While we haven't gotten where we want yet, I think this thread has made tremendous progress. Let me try to summarize a bit and say where I think questions remain. The first issue is disclosure and defining "partnership understanding," which is what the laws say has to be disclosed. I suggest we can find some help in L40E, where "system" and "method" are contrasted with "style and judgement." While the definition of each of these terms may also be unclear, they provide a framework for thinking about the issues. I will therefore suggest that 'partnership understanding' can be defined as "method (or system) plus _knowledge of_ partner's style and judgment." This accords with L75B/C and is what has to be disclosed. Applying to the H1H: all relevant information has to be disclosed, no matter whether we think it is part of the system or a matter of style. _How_ disclosure is to be accomplished is a matter for the SO. In particular, if they (foolishly) don't require or don't allow advance disclosure under L40B or 40E1, I don't see how that in itself prohibits Herman from making his bid. There are _lots_ of agreements any regular partnership has that are not disclosed in advance, and there's nothing wrong with having or using such agreements. Of course the H1H may be prohibited under other powers of the SO; that's where things are unclear to me. I'll try to frame some of the issues below, but I have a bit more to say about disclosure. SW> I'm also curious about my example of 1NT on 10 points. The real SW> agreement was 10-12, but the convention card said 15-17. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ If the true agreement was 10-12 and > this was not disclosed there was clearly a > concealed partnership understanding, > whether in all innocence or through malice. Let's assume an innocent mistake. If there was malice, we are surely talking about C&E action. All I'm want to know is when to adjust the score. > The Director may act under 40B. The pair > is also subject to the possibility of a > penalty. In the absence of specific detail > I would support the Director in the > exercise of his discretion. ~ G ~ +=+ Well, fair enough for Grattan. I can understand his not wanting to state a definite view, given his official position. Nevertheless, it seems to me that for improperly filled out convention cards or other failures of advance disclosure, the distinction between an illegal bid (under L40B) and simple MI is one where TD's need official guidance and shouldn't be just making it up on the spot. This might be something for the "approved jurisprudence" to address. I can think of several possible ways to make the required distinction, but that's another thread entirely. Come to think of it, isn't there already a WBF case on point? I'm remembering a pair who filed a wrong convention card at one of the world championships. My memory is vague, but I think they weren't arriving in time and asked someone else to file the card for them. But somehow the card left off some kind of two-suited bid or something, but the pair proceeded to use the bid anyway. The AC decision was that _use_ of the bid was illegal, and in fact the score was adjusted not only for the deal under appeal but also for use on a prior occasion, and I think there was also a PP. Anyway, it was a very harsh decision. Perhaps someone with a better memory can give a proper citation and supply details. We come now to the issue of what can be _regulated_, that is what is "system" and what is not. We should keep in mind, in discussing psychic bidding, that the same principles should apply to false cards by the defenders. It seems to me there are at least three separate questions. 1) On what basis do we draw a distinction between "system/method" (which can be regulated) and "style/judgment" (which cannot)? 2) What regulations do SO's in fact have in this area? 3) What would be wise regulations for SO's to have? I think only 2) has clear answers, and that only for a few SO's. As to 1), I've seen the following criteria mentioned: a) what fraction of potentially suitable hands make the bid/play in question (e.g., does Herman open 1H on _all_ the "suitable" hands). b) what fraction of hands that make a certain bid will turn out to be the "psychic" (e.g., what fraction of Herman's 1H openers will be very weak with few hearts). c) whether the rest of the system caters to the "psychic" usage. d) past partnership discussion and experience. e) whether partner caters to the psychic on the current hand. f) whether both members of the partnership employ the same "psychic." Have I missed any? I have stated no opinion on the _merits_ of any of the above distinctions, but I'd like to start with a complete catalog of the possibilities. And I hope it's clear I'm not picking on Herman; he has just offered us a very convenient example. Personally, I'd be delighted for him to use the H1H against me. I like +1400 as much as the next person! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 07:59:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:59:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA07510 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8166 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2000 21:57:47 -0000 Received: from mizra-11-51.access.net.il (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.11.51) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 16 Jul 2000 21:57:47 -0000 Message-ID: <39723061.779135A@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:00:02 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Law List , bridge Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B187F48BBCACC24A825720DB" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B187F48BBCACC24A825720DB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------B187F48BBCACC24A825720DB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.bezeqint.net (mail-a.bezeqint.net [192.115.106.23]) by marge.inter.net.il (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e6GGExn32095; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:14:59 +0300 Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.179.173.51]) by mail.bezeqint.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with ESMTP id <0FXS0066NT2MSF@mail.bezeqint.net>; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:13:40 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:14:28 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon Subject: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]- I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.] To: Al Rozen , Aliza Duby , aliza111 , Aviva , Aviva Shilon , Benjamin Goldstein , Bryan Rozen , Carmela Shimoni , Danny Mayer , Dany Haimovici , Doron Afik , Dov Burt Levy , Dov Weiss , Edna Levi , Eyal , Lewis Fogel , Gabi Erlich , Goldstein , Josh Giberstone , Lionel Gaffen , Uri Gilboa , Leah Goldstein , Michael Goldstein , Hanan Sher , Ilan Shezifi , Ilana , Ilana Modlinger , Issie Akerman , Home-in Israel , Jerry Mersel , Joan Prager , Yaacov Baumgold , Marion Stone , mike abrahams , Sam Orbaum , Reuven Ackerman , Shirley & Arthur Rozen , Shoshana Shilon , Shoshi Schifter , Zeev Silverman , Sam Orbaum , Tchiya Yaffe , zy Message-id: <3971ED74.E368AB56@isdn.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------BD44950EB54D44884EE8E898" X-Accept-Language: Hebrew,en-US,en X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------BD44950EB54D44884EE8E898 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]- I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly. Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:25:30 +0200 From: Lionel Gaffen To: Lionel Gaffen ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/free_video/ -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Cohen To: Drew Staffenberg ; Elaine Goldstein ; Eli Rubenstein ; Eliezer Kalai ; Zoe Klein ; Sharon Schwartzmann ; Shannon Etkin ; Sally&Michael Klein-Katz ; Ruthie Saragosty ; Riki Heilik ; Nurit Biderman ; Nissim Lagziel ; Lionel Gaffen ; Larry Katz ; Judi Levine ; Joe Perlov ; James Backer ; Jack Cohen ; Heidi Coleman ; Gila Cohen ; Gila Noam ; Gerry Koffman ; Galia Barak ; Frank Simkevitz ; Elliot Halperin Date: Sunday, July 16, 2000 3:07 PM Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]] > > --------------BD44950EB54D44884EE8E898 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="nsmailV7.TMP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check] Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmailV7.TMP" Received: from uiac.org.il (194.90.184.86) by uiac.org.il with ESMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1); Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:09:30 +0000 Message-ID: <3971A56E.93EE8BAE@uiac.org.il> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:07:11 +0200 From: Dvora Wilshansky Reply-To: dvoraw@uiac.org.il Organization: United Israel Appeal of Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dvoraw@hotmail.com Subject: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Pompagran@aol.com wrote: > Good Luck! > E > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check > Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:52:17 EDT > From: SFS1418@aol.com > To: MervynB@aol.com, Pompagran@aol.com, fminzgen@istar.com, AKaplan920@aol.com, > kaplanfamily@worldnet.att.net, bevkaplan@usa.net, Kaplan02@aol.com, > ActressZ@aol.com, abnat@msn.com, Dorrice120@aol.com, aszeftel@ucla.edu, > rudwin@natn.com, Lorrwat@aol.com > > Fay Szeftel > sfs1418@aol.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check > Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:51:54 EDT > From: ERSFM@aol.com > To: blchace@gateway.net, Tennisamy@aol.com, kaplanfamily@worldnet.att.net, > s.rovin@ postoffice.worldnet.att.net, SirMike76@aol.com, > Rooze21@aol.com, BevRS@aol.com, Bethmah@aol.com, SFS1418@aol.com, > retcon@msn.com, CaroleRD@aol.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check > Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:24:08 EDT > From: ROJOJOER@aol.com > To: jander@flashcom.net, RhodaApple@aol.com, steapp@iesg.com, CurlierQ@aol.com, > EFeinerman@aol.com, LFeinerman@aol.com, feinerwoman@mindspring.com, > Jstlth1@aol.com, Angolfer@aol.com, Ellen.Reuben@mail.tju.edu, > BFReeh@aol.com, AKREN@co.boulder.co.us, Rubrage@aol.com, > Summersgreat@aol.com, ERSFM@aol.com, sterne@comcat.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check > Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:36:09 -0400 > From: "Nancy Shane" > To: , , , > , , > > Maybe we can all get rich with this little scheme... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Fw: This works, I just got a check > Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:12:54 -0400 > From: "CHARLES FISHER" > Reply-To: "CHARLES FISHER" > To: "THELMA LEE REDMON" , "SAL TRAMONTANA" , "BOB > MORRIS" , "BOBBY FISHER" , "TRISH" , "PHYLLIS > COTE" , "JACK & SUZANNE DAVIS" , "RONNIE > DAVIS" , "JASON FISHER" , "GORDON > WOODBURY" , "GUY REDMON" , "GREG > SMITH" , "JEN FISHER" , "CHRIS > FISHER" , "BETTY PRIESTLY" , "BILLY > BARRONS" , "JEFF FISHER" , "ALLEN > GILMARTIN" > > -----Original Message----- > From: tklee > To: Ed Moore ; Don/Hywatha Robinson ; > David Jones ; CHARLES FISHER ; > Catherine Murnane ; Casey Daigle ; Bob > Lee ; Bob Foster ; Bob & Sandy > Buxton ; Blake Berdine ; Bill McHale > ; Bill & Pat Rendfeld ; A.L. and > C.E. Norton > Date: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:19 PM > Subject: Fw: This works, I just got a check > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Paul King > >To: tklee > >Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 5:12 PM > >Subject: FW: This works, I just got a check > > > > > >> > >> > >>-------- > >>>From: rfbauer@earthlink.net > >>>To: paul.king9@gte.net > >>>Subject: FW: This works, I just got a check > >>>Date: July 02, 2000 > >>> > >>> > >>>---------- > >>>From: Shuflined@aol.com > >>>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:01:40 EDT > >>>To: JBarrin@cs.com, rfbauer@earthlink.net, drperv@msn.net, > >Safari40@aol.com, > >>>BLUC1304@aol.com, Rccnac@aol.com, JFCORCORAN@aol.com, Wayne773@aol.com, > >>>bernst@hotmail.com, DHARRIGAN2@cs.com, houseinthewoods@juno.com, > >>>maysie@worldnet.att.net, Hrhsheila@aol.com, RMHPSH@aol.com, > >Clhcon@aol.com, > >>>ddolphin@cyberstreet.com, ekmrk@juno.com, Nam0420@aol.com, > >patini@webtv.net, > >>>PPutnam442@aol.com, LynnwW7767@aol.com, ELOVE62@aol.com, Wdrimr@aol.com, > >>>jermay@worldnet.att.net, SpracklenR@aol.com, CHARLESJERRYT@aol.com, > >>>Khafrav3@aol.com, GaryB@san-jose.tt.slb.com, > PBergamini@tink.veridian.com, > >>>AlysonsHouse@aol.com, Cyndi.Bergamini@charming.com, > >Jbarrera@purchasepro.com > >>>Subject: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>From: "Gordon Blaum" > >>>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 21:37:19 -0700 > >>>To: , "Wilma & Joe" , > >>>, "Tom Capps" , , > >"Steve > >>>Blaum" , , "Ryan Blaum" > >>>, , "robert j caron" > >>>, "Ray & Lucille Bates" , > >>>, , "MV Smith" > >, > >>>"Mike Shotter" , "Michael D Parnell" > >>>, "Malcolm B Sykes" , > >"Lorraine > >>>Martz" , , "Katy Rayle" > >>>, , "John Meadows" > >>>, "John McLaughlin" , "Jim & > Mary > >>>Clayton" , "JERRY NEAL" , "Jack Sokol" > >>>, , "George & Earline Barry" > >>>, , , > >>>, "Earl Byron Smith" , > >>>, , , > >>>, "Charles Frey" , > >>>, , , > >>>, , , "Alicia > >>>Knighten" > >>>Subject: Fw: This works, I just got a check > >>> > >>> Sounds good > >>>Gordon > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: Eileen Kroll > >>>To: Marylyn ; Clerical > >>> ; Dan Magoulick > >>> ; Jcholt7@aol. com ; John Magoulick > >>> ; Keith Winter > > > >>>; Keith Winter ; klaw > >>> ; Patricia Hannigan > >>> ; madfox@earthlink.net ; Betsey Bailey > >>> ; Michelle Mikula > >; > >>>Mary Magoulick ; AMERICAN-ANTIQUES > >>> ; Sheryl Ann Winter > >>> ; Wesley Smith > >>> ; mikula@gateway.net ; > >>>michaeltmikula@email.whirlpool.com ; julie.dolan@mci.com ; > >>>jodi_kleiber@brady.com ; jeepcjanne@aol.com ; > dkroll@scottpublications.com > >; > >>>rstewart@scottpublications.com ; bluesmik@kalnet.net ; uglimon@aol.com ; > >>>terry.mikula@snaponcredit.com ; melanieketterhagan@snaponcredit.com ; > >>>janetvale@aol.com ; mikehannigan@hotmail.com ; jhannigan@vincam.com ; > >>>gapjhp@aol.com ; dkroll@mail.oeonline.com ; wixom2020@aol.com ; > >>>romiller52@aol.com > >>>Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 6:33 PM > >>>Subject: Fw: This works, I just got a check > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: Randy & Michele > >>>To: Eileen Kroll > >>>Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 12:04 PM > >>>Subject: Fw: This works, I just got a check > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: Doyle Watt > >>>To: Ronald &Judy Helm ; Syxx821790@aol.com ; > >>>Robin Watt ; randy > >>> ; MJ &Tony Stevens > >>> ; Inge Thoben > >; > >>>Ingo Thoben ; Marc H. Thoben > >>> ; Laura J. Nix ; > >Jim > >>>Harber ; Jim & Rachel Chamness > >>> ; edwina schmidt ; > Dick > >>>Owens ; Dean & Donald Hartley > >>> ; Brenda K White > > > >>>; Bill Haynes ; beachy > >>> ; Art Sneed ; > >Angie > >>>Jackson ; ALILWALLFLOWER@aol.com > >>>Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 4:15 PM > >>>Subject: Fw: This works, I just got a check > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: brenda white > >>>To: Larry Thomas (E-mail) ; al balnius > >>> ; kim bignell ; > >brenda > >>> ; bart butterfield > >>> ; jaci butterfield > >; > >>>jay butterfield ; Vance Dalton > >>> ; DAVE ELLEN > >; > >>>Mickey Ellen ; david eppy > >>> ; barbara evestarz > > > >>>; gina ; Patricia A Jenkins > >>> ; John ; Kay Johns > >>> ; Ted Kretzer > >; > >>>candy kutch ; denice liebe-thomas > >>> ; Denice Liebe-Thomas > > > >>>; Robert Murphy ; Rudy Olkoski > >>> ; darlene m peters > > >>>; jackie sam ; Tish Shumway > >>> ; Suzan ; > Traci > >>>Marie Triplett ; Doyle Watt > >>> ; bobbie white > >>> ; brian white > >>> ; Jack White ; > >>>Lonnie White ; Mark Robyn White > >>> ; Riley F White > >>> ; Scott family White > >>> ; vincent white > > >>>; cindy wirth ; robert wirth > >>> > >>>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 7:02 PM > >>>Subject: This works, I just got a check > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>My Mom sent this, and it came from a lawyer > >>>in her company. What the heck!! > >>>If I become rich, I'll buy you all drinks!! > >>>I never do these things - but this came from > >>>one of our attorneys - so how bad could it be?! > >>>I'm an attorney, and I know the law. This thing > >>>is for real. Rest assured AOL and Intel will > >>>follow through with their promises for fear of > >>>facing a multimillion dollar class action suit > >>>similar to the one filed by PepsiCo against > >>>General Electric not too long ago. I'll be damned > >>>if we're all going to help them out with their > >>>e-mail beta test without getting a little > >>>something > >>>for our time. > >>>My brother's girlfriend got in on this a few > >>>months > >>>ago. When I went to visit him for the Baylor/UT > >>>game she showed me her check. It was for the sum > >>>of $4,324.44, and was stamped "Paid In Full". > >>>Like I said before, I know the law, and this is > >>>for > >>>real. If you don't believe me you can email her at > >>>jpiltman@baylor.edu. She's eager to answer any > >>>questions you guys might have. Thanks, Dirk. > >>> > >>>Intel and AOL are now discussing a merger which > >>>would make them the largest Internet company and > >>>in an effort make sure that AOL remains the most > >>>widely used program, Intel and AOL are running an > >>>e-mail beta test. When you forward this e-mail to > >>>friends, Intel can and will track it (if you are a > >>>Microsoft Windows user) for a two week time > >>>period. > >>>For every person that you forward this e-mail to, > >>>Microsoft will pay you $203.15. For every person > >>>that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft > >>>will pay you $156.29 and for every third person > >>>that receives it, you will be paid $17.65. Within > >>>two weeks, Intel will contact you for your address > >>>and then send you a check. > >>>I thought this was a scam myself, but a friend > >>>of my friend, who works at Intel actually got a > >>>check for $4,543.23 by forwarding this e-mail. > >>> > >>>Try it, what have you got to lose???? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>! ! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Do You Yahoo!? > >>>Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Alternative(12).htmName: Alternative(12).htm > Type: Plain Text (text/plain) --------------BD44950EB54D44884EE8E898-- --------------B187F48BBCACC24A825720DB-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 11:06:04 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:06:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07771 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:05:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13DzLo-000GbE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:05:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:45:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: References: <200007161929.PAA25335@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007161929.PAA25335@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: Jack Rhind >> [South] wants redress as a result if >> both an incorrect explanation and his own bad bid. That is why in this >> particular case I would allow the result to stand for N/S but penalize >> E/W. > >[It will help most of us if posters remember to limit line lengths of >original material to 72 characters. I'm not sure what happened to the >subject line of this thread, but subject lines should be left unchanged >unless intentionally changed for a new topic.] It would be helpful if the minority of posters who do not follow general rules of Netiquette start to do so. Some authors are far more difficult to read than others - even apart from what they say! RGB has a style-guide for posting there that is posted thrice a year to RGB and is on websites: perhaps it would be useful here. The original post had no subject line. Please do not make posts with no subject lines: it upsets some software, and it is helpful to readers who pick and choose posts [rather than reading everything] to have some idea what a thread is about. -- 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 Mon Jul 17 11:19:56 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:19:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07806 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:19:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-65-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.65]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA27041; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:19:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:17:13 -0400 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Psyches, yet another try In-Reply-To: <200007162031.QAA26070@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:31 PM 7/16/00 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >Come to think of it, isn't there already a WBF case on point? I'm >remembering a pair who filed a wrong convention card at one of the >world championships. My memory is vague, but I think they weren't >arriving in time and asked someone else to file the card for them. But >somehow the card left off some kind of two-suited bid or something, but >the pair proceeded to use the bid anyway. The AC decision was that >_use_ of the bid was illegal, and in fact the score was adjusted not >only for the deal under appeal but also for use on a prior occasion, >and I think there was also a PP. Anyway, it was a very harsh >decision. Perhaps someone with a better memory can give a proper >citation and supply details. I have the 1994 Albuquerque casebook,; this is Case 57. One of the Polish pairs had a convention card which did not arrive, and the new card was filled out "in a hurry by a third party". The unregistered convention was a 1NT bid on K853 54 AQJ987 2 over a 1H opening. The TD ruled 3 IMPs to the non-offenders on this board, and retroactively awarded 3 IMPs to the opponents when this convention was used on a previous board. The TD asked the AC to review the facts. The AC ruling: "The Committee noted that the pair involved were extermemly experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. They should not have been excused for the grave breach of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the methods on the convention card officially registered. They were barred from playing the final segment of the semifinal of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of three IMPs to North-South of each of the two boards was confirmed." This is unusually harsh wording for an AC; I would normally expect to see it only for frivolous appeals. Suspension for 16 boards is a severe penalty. The only panelist to comment in detail on the ruling was Ton Kooijman, who made the usual point that we make in such cases on BLBL: there should be an adjustment if there was damage, not an automatic +3 IMPs for the non-offenders. A PP to the offenders is appropriate, but without knowing more of the facts, it's hard to see the appropriate level of penalty. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 11:35:53 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:53 +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 LAA07831 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from grabiner (dialup-20-65-bg.wcnet.org [205.133.172.65]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA01986; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000716212111.0092a490@mail.wcnet.org> X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:21:11 -0400 To: Dany Haimovici , Bridge Law List , bridge From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Please stop this chain letter (was Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]]) In-Reply-To: <39723061.779135A@inter.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please don't forward chain letters to mailing lists, particularly when you risk spreading dangerous rumors (in this case, that Microsoft can read every E-mail sent). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 15:18:27 2000 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08108 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:18:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA24256 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:18:21 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000717151745.01160110@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:17:46 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is the last BLML message from the old octavia - when next we meet we will be coming to you from a new system, in a new building, with a new OS and a new bundle of tools. Expect things to break :-). "Say goodnight, Irene." "Goodnight Irene".... Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 20:13:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HABQ812699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:11:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HABDt12687 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:11:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-112.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.112]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04234 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:16:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39717A03.130AD7B2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:01:55 +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: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> <396C9B70.2D4A5B65@village.uunet.be> <011001bfed62$7ef31120$225408c3@dodona> <396F065E.3837091D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >> The Director may look at whatever evidence > >> there may be to form his judgement - and it is the > >> Director's judgement of the question 'does a partnership > >> understanding exist?' (and the AC's) that determines the > >> answer, not what the player believes, nor what he has > >> acknowledged. +=+ > > >Yes Grattan, true, but this list is a forum of Tournament > >Directors. > >We are here to determine what evidence the TD should use in > >his judgement. > > This list is a forum of people interested in the Laws of bridge. > Several of our readers are not TDs. We should not forget such readers, > and not all our discussion should be solely to decide what TDs should > do. > Don't turn my points upside down, David. Several of us here ARE practicing TD's, who use this forum to forge their opinions on how to interpret the Laws. Grattan's point was that this was not the function of blml. I was saying that it is one of the functions of blml. You contribute that it is not the only function. No, we should not forget others, but it is not nice of you David, to jump on a post of mine that does not contradict (IMO) your opinion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 20:13:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HABOU12698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:11:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HABBt12684 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:11:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-112.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.112]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04205 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:16:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397177D1.EA3A4351@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:52:33 +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: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <000701bfeb5c$b8c378c0$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> <396C6164.9229002E@village.uunet.be> <016b01bfee91$2ec9a9e0$54291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Example: > My partnership's responses to our 2S opener are > - 2NT: either D fit or strong > - 3C wants to play 3C opposite a weak club onesuiter. > - 3D/H/S 6 card suit, invitational values, 3+ controls > Now try to guess the 'meaning' of the 2S opener ;-) > I will give a counter-example : The responses to our 1He opener (even in third hand) are : - etc etc etc ... Now try to guess the meaning of the 1He opener. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 17 20:13:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HABOK12697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:11:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HABBt12685 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:11:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-112.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.112]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04224 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3971794F.F20B3237@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:58:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3960E4E2.86B08C3C@village.uunet.be> <02bc01bfe8c2$e1c75620$76291dc2@rabbit> <3968428D.496C7509@village.uunet.be> <000301bfe9ab$1d6e23a0$022a1dc2@rabbit> <3969AD32.A82A416F@village.uunet.be> <008601bfea7f$3b684aa0$ce2b1dc2@rabbit> <396AF26B.277A4F13@village.uunet.be> <000701bfeb5c$b8c378c0$bd2b1dc2@rabbit> <396C6164.9229002E@village.uunet.be> <016b01bfee91$2ec9a9e0$54291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Nothing in the law prevents me from playing > 10-12 and 'raise on any flat 12 count' *at*the*same*time*. > [Side note: I know one world champion pair who > played 7-15 limited openers and 'responder forces to game > on any 13HCP hand'. They did in fact open 7 and 8 HCP hands > so frequently and successfully, that a regulations change > to 'rule of 18 for 1 level openers' was rumoured to > have been designed against this one partnership.] > > > Especially if you happen to have opened on 13. > > Hey, I psyched ;-) > I understand the smiley. But don't you realise that this is just my point ? You can NOT let the decision on whether something is a psyche or not, depend solely on the explanations of the players. Certainly you would not rule in this player's favour would you ? (even if it is yourself). Neither do I expect the H1H to be ruled psychic on the basis of my statement that I've never done this before. But neither do I want the H1H to be ruled systemic on the basis of my statement that I have done this before. I'm only being honest. That's no crime. My partner too wants to be honest. He too wants to be able to say that I have done a H1H sometimes in the past. As long as he has not altered his actions on the basis of that knowledge (until the psyche is exposed in some authorised manner), he should be allowed to keep that knowledge (divulge it to the opponents of course) and play on. You cannot expect him to forget this, can you. After all, even if he has forgotten it, you could rule against him ("could have known"). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 00:28:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HEQ2f12866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:26:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HEPut12862 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA24574 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:31:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:31 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: [BLML] Partnership Understanding :) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, Turned up with Emily (my wife, still a novice) for an evening's duplicate the other day to find there was only one opponent. One of the hosts made us up for a session of zero stakes, fixed partnership. Playing 12-14 the first hand was a flat 10 count - aha I thought time for a Zia and opened 1NT. Partner, holding a 13 count with 5 good diamonds bids 2D natural, P,P,P. 3NT makes only on a spade lead. Having explained to partner what "psych" and "field" mean we decided that this should be ruled green. Imagine my delight however, when third in hand and after P,P I held Axxx,x,xxxx,xxxx - OK not quite perfect - but close enough - so you open the "obvious" 1H. LHO bids 3NT and partner, who now knows what "field" means thinks considerably before bidding 4H (don't worry about UI, partner thinks considerably before any bid above the 2-level). The bidding continues P,P (sweating), D (amazingly confident), P, P, and I venture 4S. Again this is doubled and after three passes you prepare to explain to your beloved why 1700 nv is very unlucky! P P 1H 3NT 4H P P D P P 4S D AP - until that is she tables T98xx AQxxx Kx x 4Sx, just made - and that, your honour, is why I married her. Tim West-Meads. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 00:38:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HEaVx12879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:36:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HEaNt12875 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from pe4s01a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.113.229] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13EC4W-0000C8-00; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:40:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bfeffc$d79c3940$e57193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Bridge Law List" , "bridge" , "David J. Grabiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20000716212111.0092a490@mail.wcnet.org> Subject: [BLML] Re: Please stop this chain letter (was Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]]) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:38:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Dany Haimovici ; Bridge Law List ; bridge Sent: 17 July 2000 02:21 Subject: Please stop this chain letter (was Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]]) > Please don't forward chain letters to mailing lists, particularly when you > risk spreading dangerous rumors (in this case, that Microsoft can read > every E-mail sent). > I deleted it without even looking at it. ~ G ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 01:32:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HFUn712907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:30:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HFUgt12903 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:30:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ed.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.205]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02298; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00fd01bff005$6cda1ec0$cd11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Dany Haimovici" , "Bridge Law List" , "bridge" , "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Please stop this chain letter (was Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]]) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:41:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I make it a practice to delete any email with an attachment that has not been prearranged with the sender. Too many folks I know have had their address books corrupted and seized by Iloveyou or funny and their ilk to risk any other approach. I would suggest NOT using attachments on this list. Sending a chain letter is of course a serious breach of netiquette. It is off topic and is advertising in my view. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Dany Haimovici ; Bridge Law List ; bridge ; David J. Grabiner Date: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:58 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: Please stop this chain letter (was Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]]) > >Grattan Endicott================================= >" Whatever makes the past, the distant, or the future >predominate over the present, advances us in the >dignity of thinking beings." (Dr Samuel Johnson) >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David J. Grabiner >To: Dany Haimovici ; Bridge Law List >; bridge >Sent: 17 July 2000 02:21 >Subject: Please stop this chain letter (was Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Fw:" [Fwd: [Fwd: >Fwd: Fw: This works, I just got a check]"]-I'llbelieve it when I see it, but >what the hey, it can't hurt, can it? Ly.]]) > > >> Please don't forward chain letters to mailing lists, particularly when you >> risk spreading dangerous rumors (in this case, that Microsoft can read >> every E-mail sent). >> >I deleted it without even looking at it. ~ G ~ > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 01:55:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HFsS012925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:54:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HFsLt12921 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:54:22 +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 SAA10820; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:00:04 +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 RAA07228; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:59:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000717180800.008727c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:08:00 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Understanding :) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:31 17/07/00 +0100, you wrote: >T98xx >AQxxx >Kx >x > >4Sx, just made - and that, your honour, is why I married her. AG : seems to show that the 'short' psyche advocated by many is superior to the De Wael opening ; 4S wouldn't have made facing that one either. No stakes ? Well ,you were unlucky, in a sense ... Alain. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 03:22:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HHKiK13075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:20:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HHKXt13071 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:20:34 +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 13EEeC-000El6-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:25:44 +0100 Message-ID: <7HE6kvAnkuc5EwbC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:08:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000711174802.38942.qmail@hotmail.com> <004001bfec07$546821e0$81d3fcd8@noelbuge> <396C9B70.2D4A5B65@village.uunet.be> <011001bfed62$7ef31120$225408c3@dodona> <396F065E.3837091D@village.uunet.be> <39717A03.130AD7B2@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39717A03.130AD7B2@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >> The Director may look at whatever evidence >> >> there may be to form his judgement - and it is the >> >> Director's judgement of the question 'does a partnership >> >> understanding exist?' (and the AC's) that determines the >> >> answer, not what the player believes, nor what he has >> >> acknowledged. +=+ >> >> >Yes Grattan, true, but this list is a forum of Tournament >> >Directors. >> >We are here to determine what evidence the TD should use in >> >his judgement. >> >> This list is a forum of people interested in the Laws of bridge. >> Several of our readers are not TDs. We should not forget such readers, >> and not all our discussion should be solely to decide what TDs should >> do. >> > >Don't turn my points upside down, David. > >Several of us here ARE practicing TD's, who use this forum >to forge their opinions on how to interpret the Laws. > >Grattan's point was that this was not the function of blml. > >I was saying that it is one of the functions of blml. > >You contribute that it is not the only function. > >No, we should not forget others, but it is not nice of you >David, to jump on a post of mine that does not contradict >(IMO) your opinion. I do not care what Grattan said. You said: >this list is a forum of Tournament >> >Directors. and that is not true. -- 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 ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 03:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HHr5C13093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:53:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HHqut13089 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:52:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ed.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.205]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10079 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <016501bff019$4b693d20$cd11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:03:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How about we compromise on improved wording? "This list is a forum comprised of those with a serious interest in the laws of bridge, including many tournament directors. Discussion of correct ways to rule is pertinent, but other matters related to the topic are also acceptable." I know you all probably agree with this...so why pick at each other? You are all fine people and have better sense than to argue and irritate each other. I partially agree with what each of you has to say on the main topic of this thread. Now that you have each said it several times, can we please move on? Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, July 17, 2000 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try >Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> >>> >> The Director may look at whatever evidence >>> >> there may be to form his judgement - and it is the >>> >> Director's judgement of the question 'does a partnership >>> >> understanding exist?' (and the AC's) that determines the >>> >> answer, not what the player believes, nor what he has >>> >> acknowledged. +=+ >>> >>> >Yes Grattan, true, but this list is a forum of Tournament >>> >Directors. >>> >We are here to determine what evidence the TD should use in >>> >his judgement. >>> >>> This list is a forum of people interested in the Laws of bridge. >>> Several of our readers are not TDs. We should not forget such readers, >>> and not all our discussion should be solely to decide what TDs should >>> do. >>> >> >>Don't turn my points upside down, David. >> >>Several of us here ARE practicing TD's, who use this forum >>to forge their opinions on how to interpret the Laws. >> >>Grattan's point was that this was not the function of blml. >> >>I was saying that it is one of the functions of blml. >> >>You contribute that it is not the only function. >> >>No, we should not forget others, but it is not nice of you >>David, to jump on a post of mine that does not contradict >>(IMO) your opinion. > > I do not care what Grattan said. You said: >>this list is a forum of Tournament >>> >Directors. >and that is not true. > >-- >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 ~ >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 04:15:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HIDfr13114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:13:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HIDVt13110 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:13:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 1.e6.8381379 (3705); Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:17:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:17:49 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/17/00 1:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > You said: > >this list is a forum of Tournament > >> >Directors. > and that is not true. Amen. This list, as I was led to believe, is for those who are interested in the Bridge Laws and would like to discuss them. I strongly am opposed to the idea that TDs arrive at interpretations from the highly skewed positions of some who saturuate this list. TOURNAMENT Directors are under the supervision and direction of their NCBOs when operating under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1997. If they have doubt in interpretations of the Laws they should address themselves to their Laws Commissions for guidance. The opinions expressed by those who direct duplicate games at various levels and others whose expertise lies in the use of English and other fields of endeavor are interesting, ad rem to the purpose of the BLML, respected by me and some others, but far from directive toward interpretations of Laws as used by TDs in their work. If the BLML held a 95% opinion opposed to a WBFLC interpretation it would be unprofessional of me to use the BLML opinion at WBF events. I would not expect or tolerate assigned assistant TDs to decided that they were going to provide interpretations different from those approved by the WBFLC. Nor would I expect or permit an AC to depart from the Laws on their own cognizance. Sometimes, in our eagerness to "show our stuff" we step outside our authority -- ego satisfying and human to be sure, but not professional. For someone to continue inane circular reasoning on this subject just makes the "delete" button so much more useful, though it does clutter up the List. I'm with Craig Senior, let's move on to things that at least might avoid repetition ad nauseum and might generate healthy discussion. How's that for not naming names? Kojak ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 05:57:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HJsb413220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:54:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f296.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.8.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6HJsVt13216 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26754 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jul 2000 06:32:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 210.117.218.253 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:32:57 PDT X-Originating-IP: [210.117.218.253] Reply-To: malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz From: "Michael Albert" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] UI or not UI Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:32:57 NZST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A very simple case which almost happened at the recent NZ nationals: N E S W P P P 1NT P P P Relevant facts: 1N in fourth seat was 16-18, not alerted (as it should have been -- opening 1NT bids whose range is not wholly contained in 11-15 are aleratble in New Zealand.) The final pass was slow (South was thinking of balancing over a weak NT.) To whom (if anyone) is the information available from South's slow pass authorised? ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael H. Albert malbert@maths.otago.ac.nz Department of Mathematics and Statistics Otago University Ph: 64-3-479-7778 Dunedin, New Zealand Fx: 64-3-479-8427 ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 07:53:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HLpOT13286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 07:51:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HLpHt13282 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 07:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.183] (dhcp165-183.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.183]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HLuQ011785 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:56:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:48:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 6:32 PM +0000 7/17/00, Michael Albert wrote: >A very simple case which almost happened at the recent NZ nationals: > >N E S W >P P P 1NT >P P P > >Relevant facts: > >1N in fourth seat was 16-18, not alerted (as it should have been -- opening >1NT bids whose range is not wholly contained in 11-15 are aleratble in New >Zealand.) I will assume that the level of the game is such that N-S are normally entitled to redress; I don't know NZ rules as to whether players are expected to know their opponents' NT range. >The final pass was slow (South was thinking of balancing over a weak NT.) > >To whom (if anyone) is the information available from South's slow pass >authorised? Equity and the spirit of the Laws suggest that the information should be UI to West and AI to N-S, because it was a direct result of East's infraction. However, none of the Laws seem to say this directly, because a slow pass is not an "action", "call", or "play" under L16C; South is not allowed to change his slow pass to an in-tempo pass. (If South changed his slow pass to an in-tempo bid, then the slow pass could be ruled "information arising from a withdrawn action" under the letter of L16C, which would solve the problem.) I would rule under L40C: If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score. Technically, this says that the slow pass remains UI to N-S and AI to West, but that if this damages N-S, then the director should adjust the score. However, in accordance with the principle that bridge should be played at the table when possible, I would rule that the slow pass is AI to N-S and UI to West immediately, and expect the players to play normally under that assumption. One important point is that the director needs to have a cross-referenced Law book handy. I had to look up L72B1 (not normally used in this type of situation), then L16C (which doesn't apply), then L21B (which also doesn't apply) which cited L40C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 07:55:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HLro213298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 07:53:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HLrit13294 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 07:53:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.141]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000717215853.OYKU16423.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:58:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bff03a$1cfbd9e0$8d08ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:58:15 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Albert" To: Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:32 PM Subject: [BLML] UI or not UI > A very simple case which almost happened at the recent NZ nationals: > > N E S W > P P P 1NT > P P P > > Relevant facts: > > 1N in fourth seat was 16-18, not alerted (as it should have been -- opening > 1NT bids whose range is not wholly contained in 11-15 are aleratble in New > Zealand.) > > The final pass was slow (South was thinking of balancing over a weak NT.) > > To whom (if anyone) is the information available from South's slow pass > authorised? > As East did not raise, I assume he did not have sufficient to do so opposite 16-18. Imagine East with 6 points and West with 17. This leaves 17 outstanding. South could think of balancing with 10 - 11 points,(and with 11 and a 5 carder he would surely have opened, and the average gives him 9 anyway so it is a close call as to whether the information he has given dec is much help anyway. As soon as dummy is exposed both defenders have a count of the hands. That said I believe the information is authorised to declarer and not to his partner. However N/S have been given MI and if this has damaged them, by giving S cause to think when he had no such cause, I could consider adjusting and would do so if the two way finesse involved a Queen after all other points were exposed. Anne ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 09:19:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6HNHJK13464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:17:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6HNHBt13460 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:17:11 +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 13EKDJ-000BbJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:22:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:15:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI References: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Albert wrote: >A very simple case which almost happened at the recent NZ nationals: > >N E S W >P P P 1NT >P P P > >Relevant facts: > >1N in fourth seat was 16-18, not alerted (as it should have been -- opening >1NT bids whose range is not wholly contained in 11-15 are aleratble in New >Zealand.) > >The final pass was slow (South was thinking of balancing over a weak NT.) > >To whom (if anyone) is the information available from South's slow pass >authorised? OK, I'll fall for it. East and West, since they are South's opponents. Since East is about to be dummy, it is not easy to see any legal way he can use this AI. So West in effect. What did I miss? The failure to alert is an infraction, of course, but so ...... OK, I have had an idea. After the slow pass, West is *required* to point out that the 1NT should have been alerted. Then South will be allowed his pass back, and can bid if his bid would have been different [difficult to see how when it is a strong 1NT and he expected a weak one!]. This means that East might get a chance to use the AI. But the answer is still East and West. -- 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 ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 11:53:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I1pGn13562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:51:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I1pCt13558 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03036 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:56:24 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:55:52 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All Well, it appears that the new machine is up and happy, and that the DNS has taken the new location to heart, and that Herman got in first :-). Please let me know if you see any problems. Also, I have taken the opportunity to update majordomo and tweak it a little - it now tags subjects with the [BLML] string, which helps some people file/sort their email, and also appends a little footer about the list, which helps those people wanting to join/leave or do other mailing list stuff. If you have any problems with these please let me know. I'll also have a new look at the options for a BLML digest edition. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 13:12:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I3ATO13601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:10:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I3AHt13597 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:10:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.199] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ENqo-000LeC-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:15:18 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bff066$c0d9e8a0$c75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200007162031.QAA26070@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:03:04 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > > > The Director may act under 40B. The pair > > is also subject to the possibility of a > > penalty. In the absence of specific detail > > I would support the Director in the > > exercise of his discretion. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Come to think of it, isn't there already a WBF case on point? I'm > remembering a pair who filed a wrong convention card at one of the > world championships. My memory is vague, but I think they weren't > arriving in time and asked someone else to file the card for them. But > somehow the card left off some kind of two-suited bid or something, but > the pair proceeded to use the bid anyway. The AC decision was that > _use_ of the bid was illegal, and in fact the score was adjusted not > only for the deal under appeal but also for use on a prior occasion, > and I think there was also a PP. Anyway, it was a very harsh > decision. Perhaps someone with a better memory can give a proper > citation and supply details. > +=+ The WBF Conditions of Contest (i.e. regulations) have very strong and specific requirements in the matter of convention cards. Omissions, and faults in general, are subject to severe penalties. The example is not necessarily one suitable for publication in a world-wide corpus of jurisprudence for all levels of the game. I am keeping my eyes open for useful material for the jurisprudence and would be glad to hear of any likely cases fitting the terms of the CoP. And, yes, I have deliberately not committed myself beyond pointing in general to what the laws actually say when interpreted in accordance with the WBF Minute of 24 August 1998, section 8. ~ Grattan ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 14:30:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I4Sru13670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I4Sdt13658 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.52] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13EP4f-000N56-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:33:41 +0100 Message-ID: <009401bff071$b437f500$c75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:41:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try > In a message dated 7/17/00 1:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You said: > > >this list is a forum of Tournament > > >> >Directors. > > and that is not true. > > Amen. This list, as I was led to believe, is for those who are interested in > the Bridge Laws and would like to discuss them. I strongly am opposed to the > idea that TDs arrive at interpretations from the highly skewed positions of > some who saturuate this list. TOURNAMENT Directors are under the supervision > and direction of their NCBOs when operating under the Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge, 1997. If they have doubt in interpretations of the Laws > they should address themselves to their Laws Commissions for guidance. The > opinions expressed by those who direct duplicate games at various levels and > others whose expertise lies in the use of English and other fields of > endeavor are interesting, ad rem to the purpose of the BLML, respected by me > and some others, but far from directive toward interpretations of Laws as > used by TDs in their work. If the BLML held a 95% opinion opposed to a WBFLC > interpretation it would be unprofessional of me to use the BLML opinion at > WBF events. I would not expect or tolerate assigned assistant TDs to decided > that they were going to provide interpretations different from those approved > by the WBFLC. Nor would I expect or permit an AC to depart from the Laws on > their own cognizance. > Sometimes, in our eagerness to "show our stuff" we step outside our authority > -- ego satisfying and human to be sure, but not professional. > > For someone to continue inane circular reasoning on this subject just makes > the "delete" button so much more useful, though it does clutter up the List. > I'm with Craig Senior, let's move on to things that at least might avoid > repetition ad nauseum and might generate healthy discussion. > > How's that for not naming names? > +=+ And Hallelujah! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 14:30:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I4SnZ13669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I4SZt13652 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.52] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13EP4b-000N56-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:33:38 +0100 Message-ID: <009201bff071$b2066f00$c75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Markus Buchhorn" References: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:29:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 2:55 AM Subject: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up > > Hi All > > Well, it appears that the new machine is up and happy, and that the DNS has > taken the new location to heart, and that Herman got in first :-). > +=+ Bravo! - and a big welcome to Jessica. ~G~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 14:30:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I4Sl613665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I4SZt13653 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.52] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13EP4g-000N56-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:33:43 +0100 Message-ID: <009501bff071$b51b5020$c75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "David J. Grabiner" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:26:17 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI > > Equity and the spirit of the Laws suggest that the information should be UI > to West and AI to N-S, because it was a direct result of East's infraction. > However, none of the Laws seem to say this directly, because a slow pass is > not an "action", "call", or "play" under L16C; South is not allowed to > change his slow pass to an in-tempo pass. (If South changed his slow pass > to an in-tempo bid, then the slow pass could be ruled "information arising > from a withdrawn action" under the letter of L16C, which would solve the > problem.) > +=+ Has not the player produced an 'unmistakable hesitation' (Law 16)? Is this not an action of the player? It seems clear enough that in the play North must avoid using anything the action may have told him. But I note the view that once dummy is faced it could be the case that the distribution of the points will be an open book to North. What the latter should avoid is an opening lead that could be predicated upon MI. Remember neither North nor South is aware of the existence of MI until it comes to the light. Before the opening lead is faced declarer has a duty to provide the correct information, and the TD will apply Law 21B1 to South's final pass. If West does correct the information the only player who might be damaged by MI is then North. If he does not, N/S may be damaged in the play if one plays the other for an honour card he does not have and it costs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 14:30:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I4Stu13671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I4SZt13654 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.52] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13EP4d-000N56-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:33:39 +0100 Message-ID: <009301bff071$b34557a0$c75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Fw: Psychic Bidding Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:34:02 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:06 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Psychic Bidding > 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 > > > > If someone wants to try and develop a new definition of a "psyche" they > have my blessing.However, I won't spin my wheels on the matter.I totally > agree with you. RALPH > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 18:57:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I8uMv13796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:56:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f262.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6I8uEt13792 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28088 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jul 2000 09:01:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20000718090115.28087.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 172.141.152.227 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:01:15 PDT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.152.227] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:01:15 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > Coping may or may not be necessary. If without the ability to cope > > within the partnership, you can show that the action is favorable more >than > > 50% of the time, you don't need to be able to cope. > >I fail to see what success rate has got to do with it. >Besides, I would not claim that my success rate is over 50%. > > > Of course, coping > > increases your odds, but it doesn't make this sort of bid any less > > advantageous. Also, risk factor of a psych is not a concept that the >law > > recognizes. > >We are not talking Law, we are trying to establish criteria. You seem to imply that because your opponents are able to cope with the H1H that it is more suitable to being allowed than other sorts of psyches. I'm arguing that ability for opponents to cope should not be a criteria for whether or not a psych should be allowed. Yes, some bids may be banned because your opponents cannot cope (e.g., 1NT, first chair, all the time, regardless of your hand). But that is not germane to the psyching problem. If we're talking about criteria, I would add: 1) systemic catching of psyches (a bid that reveals some other bid as a psych) is sufficient to rule a psych illegal. 2) the absence of a systemic catch is not sufficient to allow a psych. 3) systemic responses to the psyched bid can be used to rule a psych illegal, but are never evidence that a psych is legal. 4) ability or inability to cope should not be used to decide whether or not a psych is legal. 5) the risk factor for a bad score should not be used to decide whether or not a psych is legal. 6) the success rate of a psych should not be used to decide whether or not a psych is legal. 7) any bid that when revealed as a psych gives a player's partner UI, should be illegal. > > It's a daunting task to discern whether or not a particular bidding > > system allows opponents to cope or not. > >I don't see why opponents should be able to cope ? Neither do I, but that's the game as it's currently regulated (to some extent). > > The former (while illegal for different reasons in the > > ACBL) does not necessarily cater to 8-card fits, 25+ HCP for game. At >IMPs > > the problem is a little more difficult since -400/-300, -620/-500, > > -420/-300, -110/-1700 is no longer a 75% game, but -8 IMPs. There is no > > clear, objective way to determine whether or not a system caters to a > > habitual psyche or not, or whether opponents can cope. The lone -1700 >you > > get every now and then is not sufficient to say that H1H should be >allowed > > because your opponents can still do well. That's not the point. > >Well, I believe it is exactly why random-2's are banned, but >4Sp openings not. >Very clearly a point. What I said was not a point was the -1700 you got last week. A bad score is relative to the scoring system and the legality of a psych should have nothing to do with the scoring system. Else we'll have MP psyches, IMP psyches, IMP at board-a-match psyches, and a whole host of hideous little things. > > Because revelation of the 'psych' leads to a UI problem. I believe >at > > least these two criteria must be met. > >UI is not a problem, as we have often stated. It is only a >problem because they won't let me give correct info to >opponents. Current rules of the game don't allow that. I believe that H1H is currently illegal. I'm still undecided whether or not it should be. I think that if it were kosher that it should be considered a two-way bid and not a psyche. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 19:03:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I93dr13814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:03:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I93Wt13808 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:03:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19619 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:08:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3972F2C2.FE3AFE57@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:49:22 +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: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <200007162031.QAA26070@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At last a positive note. Thanks Steve. Not that I absolutely agree with everything you write (although I come pretty near - as you'll see), but specifically for understanding the problem. Steve Willner wrote: > > While we haven't gotten where we want yet, I think this thread has made > tremendous progress. Let me try to summarize a bit and say where I > think questions remain. > > The first issue is disclosure and defining "partnership understanding," > which is what the laws say has to be disclosed. First remark. While L40A&B indeed speak of disclosing partnership understanding, L75C uses other words (agreement and experience). It is my belief that the word agreement of L75B is equivalent to the understanding of L40A, since both Laws say apparently the same thing. Therefore, the word "experience" of L75C must mean something which is not yet "understanding". My conclusion is that there is a difference between "understanding" and "that which must be discosed". But that is just a minor difference with what Steve is saying. Let's go on. > I suggest we can find > some help in L40E, where "system" and "method" are contrasted with > "style and judgement." While the definition of each of these terms may > also be unclear, they provide a framework for thinking about the > issues. IMO, "agreement", "system" and "method" as of L40E is again synonimous to "understanding" of L40A and "agreement" of L75B. "style" and "judgment" can then be classed with "experience", and must be disclosed but are not part of the system which can be regulated. > I will therefore suggest that 'partnership understanding' can > be defined as "method (or system) plus _knowledge of_ partner's style > and judgment." This accords with L75B/C and is what has to be > disclosed. > Well, I don't think "knowledge of partner's style" is part of "understanding", but I agree that it must be disclosed, as "experience". > Applying to the H1H: all relevant information has to be disclosed, no > matter whether we think it is part of the system or a matter of style. > There has never been any discussion about that. I believe my opponents are entitled to know even more than what my partner actually remembers at the table. Of course he cannot tell them what he does not know, but they are still entitled to it and should receive adjustment if they have been damaged by something that they have not been told. (just as an aside, I believe there is only very rarely "damage", but I will always look for it) > _How_ disclosure is to be accomplished is a matter for the SO. In > particular, if they (foolishly) don't require or don't allow advance > disclosure under L40B or 40E1, I don't see how that in itself prohibits > Herman from making his bid. There are _lots_ of agreements any regular > partnership has that are not disclosed in advance, and there's nothing > wrong with having or using such agreements. Of course the H1H may be > prohibited under other powers of the SO; that's where things are unclear > to me. I'll try to frame some of the issues below, but I have a bit > more to say about disclosure. > exactly. These are two separate issues. > SW> I'm also curious about my example of 1NT on 10 points. The real > SW> agreement was 10-12, but the convention card said 15-17. > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ If the true agreement was 10-12 and > > this was not disclosed there was clearly a > > concealed partnership understanding, > > whether in all innocence or through malice. > > Let's assume an innocent mistake. If there was malice, we are surely > talking about C&E action. All I'm want to know is when to adjust the > score. > > > The Director may act under 40B. The pair > > is also subject to the possibility of a > > penalty. In the absence of specific detail > > I would support the Director in the > > exercise of his discretion. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Well, fair enough for Grattan. I can understand his not wanting to > state a definite view, given his official position. Nevertheless, it > seems to me that for improperly filled out convention cards or other > failures of advance disclosure, the distinction between an illegal bid > (under L40B) and simple MI is one where TD's need official guidance and > shouldn't be just making it up on the spot. This might be something > for the "approved jurisprudence" to address. I can think of several > possible ways to make the required distinction, but that's another > thread entirely. > Yes, I concur with your sentiments about Grattan. He emphasises that it is up to NCBO to provide guidelines, while we are looking for guidelines by means of blml. I believe both should supplement each other. > Come to think of it, isn't there already a WBF case on point? I'm > remembering a pair who filed a wrong convention card at one of the > world championships. My memory is vague, but I think they weren't > arriving in time and asked someone else to file the card for them. But > somehow the card left off some kind of two-suited bid or something, but > the pair proceeded to use the bid anyway. The AC decision was that > _use_ of the bid was illegal, and in fact the score was adjusted not > only for the deal under appeal but also for use on a prior occasion, > and I think there was also a PP. Anyway, it was a very harsh > decision. Perhaps someone with a better memory can give a proper > citation and supply details. > I remember equally vaguely something like this. It would be interesting to dig this one up. > We come now to the issue of what can be _regulated_, that is what is > "system" and what is not. We should keep in mind, in discussing > psychic bidding, that the same principles should apply to false cards > by the defenders. A point well noted. I do not believe that anyone who writes system in stead of partnership understanding does so in the mistaken belief that card play is excluded from the discussion. I propose that we keep making this mistake, and that we refrain from using tangled sentences that always contain a reference to the playing part. We know this. > It seems to me there are at least three separate > questions. I always answer this with "only 3 ?". > 1) On what basis do we draw a distinction between > "system/method" (which can be regulated) and "style/judgment" (which > cannot)? The question which Grattan points us to the NCBO but which we should (IMO) resolve on blml for our gentle readers. > 2) What regulations do SO's in fact have in this area? This depends so much from country to country that it is a most difficult question. > 3) What > would be wise regulations for SO's to have? A very important question. We have many people on the list who contribute in writing the regulations, and advice to them is equally important. > I think only 2) has clear > answers, and that only for a few SO's. > I propose that we analise the WBF system policy together, and that we leave it to the regional bodies to draw their conclusions upon their own texts. > As to 1), I've seen the following criteria mentioned: > a) what fraction of potentially suitable hands make the bid/play in > question (e.g., does Herman open 1H on _all_ the "suitable" hands). With the side question, what is "suitable". If you define suitable as those hands that I do it on, then I do it on 100% of suitable hands. > b) what fraction of hands that make a certain bid will turn out to be > the "psychic" (e.g., what fraction of Herman's 1H openers will be very > weak with few hearts). far better criteria IMO. > c) whether the rest of the system caters to the "psychic" usage. > d) past partnership discussion and experience. > e) whether partner caters to the psychic on the current hand. > f) whether both members of the partnership employ the same "psychic." > > Have I missed any? I have stated no opinion on the _merits_ of any of > the above distinctions, but I'd like to start with a complete catalog of > the possibilities. And I hope it's clear I'm not picking on Herman; he > has just offered us a very convenient example. Personally, I'd be > delighted for him to use the H1H against me. I like +1400 as much as > the next person! :-) Very good work, Steve, and thanks again. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 19:03:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6I93nJ13820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:03:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6I93at13811 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19653 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:08:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3972F3B4.9BF4B14B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:53:24 +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: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... References: <3.0.32.20000717151745.01160110@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > This is the last BLML message from the old octavia - when next we meet we > will be coming to you from a new system, in a new building, with a new OS > and a new bundle of tools. Expect things to break :-). > > "Say goodnight, Irene." > > "Goodnight Irene".... > Who is Irene ? I would have expected the quote (Gracie) to be altered to "Octavia", perhaps not a very common girls name in the rest of the world, but quite so in Luxembourg. I have two (very far) aunts with the name Octavie. > Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 > email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 > Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 20:38:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IAcA913859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:38:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IAc2t13855 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:38:03 +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 13EUqA-000M2l-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:43:07 +0000 Message-ID: <2ja5NACcC6c5EwYv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI References: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 6:32 PM +0000 7/17/00, Michael Albert wrote: >>A very simple case which almost happened at the recent NZ nationals: >> >>N E S W >>P P P 1NT >>P P P >> >>Relevant facts: >> >>1N in fourth seat was 16-18, not alerted (as it should have been -- opening >>1NT bids whose range is not wholly contained in 11-15 are aleratble in New >>Zealand.) > >I will assume that the level of the game is such that N-S are normally >entitled to redress; I don't know NZ rules as to whether players are >expected to know their opponents' NT range. > >>The final pass was slow (South was thinking of balancing over a weak NT.) >> >>To whom (if anyone) is the information available from South's slow pass >>authorised? > >Equity and the spirit of the Laws suggest that the information should be UI >to West and AI to N-S, because it was a direct result of East's infraction. Eh? The spirit of the Laws say that you do not use information gained from partner, even if LHO is OJ Simpson. There is *no* suggestion that the Laws do not apply because there has been a separate infraction at an earlier stage. -- 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 ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 18 23:27:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IDRBe14002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IDR3t13998 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:27:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4rr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.123]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA20756; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000401bff0bd$4febc580$7b13f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:36:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You are showing your youth, Herman. (Or your desire to eat lamb chops with potatoes perhaps.) While the venerable comedy team of Burns and Allen always did end with George saying "goodnight Gracie" to the lady who may have been the premiere comedienne of the twentieth century, it was a more musical reference that Marcus was making. The song "Goodnight Irene" was a number one hit in the late forties, with the best known version here in the states by the folk group The Weavers led by Pete Seeger. But so as not to insult your aunts or the other Luxembourgers, Goodnight Octavia..."I'll see YOU in my dreams." And thanks to Marcus for getting things up and running so smoothly...I had feared weeks of downtime! Will our sybject line now always lead off with {BLML} now? Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 5:17 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... >Markus Buchhorn wrote: >> >> This is the last BLML message from the old octavia - when next we meet we >> will be coming to you from a new system, in a new building, with a new OS >> and a new bundle of tools. Expect things to break :-). >> >> "Say goodnight, Irene." >> >> "Goodnight Irene".... >> > >Who is Irene ? > >I would have expected the quote (Gracie) to be altered to >"Octavia", perhaps not a very common girls name in the rest >of the world, but quite so in Luxembourg. I have two (very >far) aunts with the name Octavie. > >> Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 >> email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 >> Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 00:13:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IEDFT14034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:13:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IED5t14030 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:13:05 +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 13EYCF-000F2a-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:18:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:38:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up References: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >Please let me know if you see any problems. > >Also, I have taken the opportunity to update majordomo and tweak it a >little - it now tags subjects with the [BLML] string, which helps some >people file/sort their email, and also appends a little footer about the >list, which helps those people wanting to join/leave or do other mailing >list stuff. If you have any problems with these please let me know. Well, I do not mind the rest, but I am not happy with a footer without a sig separator. As it is at the moment, people who do not edit very much will find the footers growing in number [as at the bottom here]. At least if it had a sig separator then anyone with good software would find it was automatically stripped off. Yes, I know a lot of people do not have software that handles sigs. but hopefully, as time goes on, and with software becoming more and more available either for free or for very little money, people will tend to get software better suited for the task, so for them - please may we have a sig separator before the footer? >Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 >email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 >Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 02:45:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IGiNk14097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:44:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IGiEt14093 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:44:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id MAA27500 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA25833; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This question is rather broad. I have a colleague who believes that a club can 1) forbid psyches and 2) not grant appeals. At the club he owns/manages/directs, he will not tell the players that they have a right to appeal his judgement ruling. I pointed out L83; he said that he reads it as saying he is not required to permit appeals. There is another club in the area with which he is associated. He plays, and sometimes directs, there. This club owner has banned psyches: a player psyches, automatic A+/A-. My colleague not only follows this policy when directing there, but defends it. Needless to say, I think both the practice of an automatic penalty for a psyche and the policy of deliberately refusing to tell the players they have a right to appeal/refusing to hear appeals are wrong. He claims that both are just good business practices; the players won't be annoyed by psyches, and the game won't be disrupted by appeals. I have tried to change his mind using the Lawbook, but without much success. Any other sources/arguements I might try? Thanks. Tony (aka ac342) ps my colleague is an ACBL director (sectionals/regionals); he is also a good friend and occasional employer :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 02:47:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IGkxi14109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:46:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IGkpt14105 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:46:52 +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 MAA17532 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007181653.MAA17532@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3972F3B4.9BF4B14B@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.32.20000717151745.01160110@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3972F3B4.9BF4B14B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:53:04 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 17 July 2000 at 13:53, Herman De Wael wrote: >Markus Buchhorn wrote: >> >> "Say goodnight, Irene." >> >> "Goodnight Irene".... > >Who is Irene ? > ...thus dating himself to be not old enough to remember when my countrymen marched through his country (OK, I'm playing a bit, but it is shown to be sung in many war movies of shortly thereafter - if they're allowed to play with dates of popularity, so can I). Yes, Markus was (probably deliberately) mixing two allusions... http://ds.dial.pipex.com/town/street/xko88/goodn.htm - for the words http://www.hlmusic.com/goodnigh.htm - for the music (take the "Lead Belly" clip, please...the MIDI (computer-generated from sheet music) is exasperatingly bad - even worse than most wedding reception bands' renditions I've had the misfortune to hear.) Michael. -- "Working with Gracie was easy. I walked on stage and said 'Gracie, how's your brother?', and she talked for 38 years." - George Burns "Bridge is a game that separates the men from the boys. It also separates husbands and wives." - George Burns ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 03:30:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IHTkG14145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:29:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IHTat14141 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:29:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8ds08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.142] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13EbFJ-0003wg-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: <002301bff0de$2cfac0a0$8e5893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <3.0.32.20000717151745.01160110@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3972F3B4.9BF4B14B@village.uunet.be> <200007181653.MAA17532@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:30:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 18 July 2000 17:53 Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... > On 17 July 2000 at 13:53, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >> > >> "Say goodnight, Irene." > >> > >> "Goodnight Irene".... > > > >Who is Irene ? > > > > Yes, Markus was (probably deliberately) mixing two allusions... > +=+ Read that 'illusions' +=+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 03:41:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6IHfEC14162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:41:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6IHf7t14158 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:41:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4rr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.123]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA05832; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007801bff0e0$cd4ed760$7b13f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:51:27 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rest assured that neither club will ever get my business! :-)) f course a club may make any regulations it sees fit. It is free to do so. It can hold games where no one is allowed to bid 1NT. It can hold games where there are only 51 cards in the deck. It can offer shuffleboard and liars poker. It can show movies. It can do whatever it thinks will please the paying customer. But none of these activities is bridge. I sincerely hope the ACBL is not allowing the award of masterpoints for a game in which the laws are suspended. I suspect they are...but there is so much dilution now anyway it probably does not matter that much. Whatever these clubs choose to call themselves they are not bridge clubs, any more than if they allowed revokes without penalty or let dummy play the hand for declarer if ge wants to go to the bar or then men's room. The laws may be stretched to call a wolf a dog and a lion a cat. But you rip the guts out of the game when you do so. Craig Senior From: A. L. Edwards To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 1:07 PM Subject: [BLML] Appeals/psyches >This question is rather broad. I have a colleague who believes >that a club can 1) forbid psyches and 2) not grant appeals. > At the club he owns/manages/directs, he will not tell the players that >they have a right to appeal his judgement ruling. I pointed >out L83; he said that he reads it as saying he is not required >to permit appeals. > There is another club in the area with which he is associated. He plays, >and sometimes directs, there. This club owner has banned psyches: a player >psyches, automatic A+/A-. My colleague not only follows this policy when >directing there, but defends it. > Needless to say, I think both the practice of an automatic penalty >for a psyche and the policy of deliberately refusing to tell the players >they have a right to appeal/refusing to hear appeals are wrong. He claims >that both are just good business practices; the players won't be annoyed >by psyches, and the game won't be disrupted by appeals. I have tried to >change his mind using the Lawbook, but without much success. > Any other sources/arguements I might try? Thanks. > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps my colleague is an ACBL director (sectionals/regionals); he is also > a good friend and occasional employer :-) > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 13:24:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J3Kq214444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:20:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J3Klt14440 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:20:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA14088 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:25:51 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000719132514.01272d80@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:25:15 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime/new host Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:53 18/07/00 -0400, Michael Farebrother wrote: >On 17 July 2000 at 13:53, Herman De Wael wrote: >>Markus Buchhorn wrote: >>> >>> "Say goodnight, Irene." >>> >>> "Goodnight Irene".... >> >>Who is Irene ? >> > >Yes, Markus was (probably deliberately) mixing two allusions... Nope - totally accidentally :-). For someone of my only 34 years I did have a vague recollection of hearing that song, and of course the comedy is Gracie's. I think I wanted an element of HAL (2001) in there as well, but it got too complicated :-) Herman asked: >I would have expected the quote (Gracie) to be altered to "Octavia", but in that case it should have been a more thunderous 'Fare thee well, octavia' (or its latin equivalent), since it was named after one of the wives (I think, I'm hazy on this) of Julius Caesar. Craig said: >And thanks to Marcus for getting things up and running so smoothly...I had >feared weeks of downtime! So did I... :-) I'm relieved. I did spend a couple of weeks (out of work hours, honestly! :-)) getting things set up and tested. >Will our sybject line now always lead off with {BLML} now? Yes, unless I get enough people voting against it. majordomo is clever enough to spot it and not repeat it in followup messages. David noted: >Well, I do not mind the rest, but I am not happy with a footer without >a sig separator. and now it should have one (see this message). Based on other feedback I have also added an extra line (now used by the sig-sep), and made the divider a bit clearer (==== vs ----) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 - ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 13:52:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J3q5B14462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:52:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J3pwt14458 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.160] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13EkyW-000JIs-00; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:56:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 22:36:33 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 5:49 PM Subject: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > This question is rather broad. I have a colleague who believes > that a club can 1) forbid psyches and 2) not grant appeals. > At the club he owns/manages/directs, he will not tell the players that > they have a right to appeal his judgement ruling. I pointed > out L83; he said that he reads it as saying he is not required > to permit appeals. > There is another club in the area with which he is associated. He plays, > and sometimes directs, there. This club owner has banned psyches: a player > psyches, automatic A+/A-. My colleague not only follows this policy when > directing there, but defends it. > Needless to say, I think both the practice of an automatic penalty > for a psyche and the policy of deliberately refusing to tell the players > they have a right to appeal/refusing to hear appeals are wrong. He claims > that both are just good business practices; the players won't be annoyed > by psyches, and the game won't be disrupted by appeals. I have tried to > change his mind using the Lawbook, but without much success. > Any other sources/arguements I might try? Thanks. > Tony (aka ac342) > +=+ Well, he has the right to regulate (e.g. ban) use of conventions. Or such uses of them as are thought undesirable. So if a player psyches a bid that is neither 3 cards or more in the suit, nor has high card strength there, nor is willing to play in that denomination (even if doubled), then such use may be forbidden. Again if initial action at the one level is taken on a hand a king (or more) below average strength, and the partner is aware of the habit, the action may be regulated and, if desired, it may be forbidden. As for appeals, it is not the purpose intended in Law 93A but if he uses 93A to 'hear' appeals then he is within the law. But the practice could be stopped by the NBO if it wished, if someone were to appeal to the national authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ - ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 14:15:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J4Fe114483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:15:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J4FUt14479 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:15:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.85] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13ElLL-000JZN-00; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 05:20:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bff139$03bcd4c0$a05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Markus Buchhorn" References: <3.0.32.20000719132514.01272d80@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime/new host Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 05:22:08 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 4:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime/new host > but in that case it should have been a more thunderous 'Fare thee well, > octavia' (or its latin equivalent), since it was named after one of the > wives (I think, I'm hazy on this) of Julius Caesar. > +=+ Sister of the emperor Augustus, married Marcellus and, being widowed, then the triumvir Antony - who later went to war against her father whereupon she divorced Antony. The latter is better remembered for his dalliance with Cleopatra. So perhaps the quote should have been : " For ever, and for ever, Farewell". ('Julius Caesar', Act 5, scene 1).to which one might add "thou art mighty yet, thy spirit walks abroad and turns our swords in our own proper entrails" (ibid. scene 3). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ - ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 14:40:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J4eEm14504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:40:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J4e8t14499 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.179]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000719044646.XMM798.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:46:46 +1200 Message-ID: <003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:43:21 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Well, he has the right to regulate (e.g. ban) > use of conventions. Or such uses of them as are > thought undesirable. So if a player psyches a bid > that is neither 3 cards or more in the suit, nor > has high card strength there, nor is willing to play > in that denomination (even if doubled), then such > use may be forbidden. Are you saying that opening 1S psychically on singleton spade is necessarily a conventional opening? Wayne Burrows - ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 14:40:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J4eAA14501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:40:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J4e5t14494 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.179]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000719044642.XLW798.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:46:42 +1200 Message-ID: <003501bff13b$dfd66f00$b36860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:41:43 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Well, he has the right to regulate (e.g. ban) > use of conventions. Or such uses of them as are > thought undesirable. So if a player psyches a bid > that is neither 3 cards or more in the suit, nor > has high card strength there, nor is willing to play > in that denomination (even if doubled), then such > use may be forbidden. This appears to be another distortion that is not written in the definitions of the laws. There are many siyuations in which bids or calls show a willingness to play in a denomination but when that denomination is doubled one runs this surely does not make the original call conventional. e.g. 1H P P* X P P 1S etc was pass conventional because I ran? 1H P 1S P 2D P P* X P P 2S etx was pass conventional because I ran? 1H P 1S P 2D P 2H* X P P 2S etc was 2H conventional because I ran when doubled? I don't see any difference in these examples from this real world psych auction the earlier bids/calls showed a willingness to play in the denomination named but another denomination was preferred when the contract became doubled 1NT 2S* 2NT 3S P P X P P 4C etc 2S was made on a Spade void with solid clubs on the side attempting (perhaps foolishly) to deflect the opponents into NT and away from their (hopefully) spades. Grattan appears either to be saying that all of these bids/calls are conventional OR that only the psychic 2S bid is conventional. I don't believe that either of these positions are > Again if initial action at the one level is taken > on a hand a king (or more) below average > strength, and the partner is aware of the habit, > the action may be regulated and, if desired, > it may be forbidden. > As for appeals, it is not the purpose intended > in Law 93A but if he uses 93A to 'hear' appeals > then he is within the law. But the practice could > be stopped by the NBO if it wished, if someone > were to appeal to the national authority. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > - > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ - ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 17:01:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J70ao14571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:00:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J70Tt14567 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.234] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Env1-000LVG-00; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:05:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> <003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:07:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 5:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ Well, he has the right to regulate (e.g. ban) > > use of conventions. Or such uses of them as are > > thought undesirable. So if a player psyches a bid > > that is neither 3 cards or more in the suit, nor > > has high card strength there, nor is willing to play > > in that denomination (even if doubled), then such > > use may be forbidden. > > Are you saying that opening 1S psychically on singleton spade is necessarily > a conventional opening? > > Wayne Burrows > +=+ I am saying that such a bid fits exactly the definition of convention as it is written in the law book, whether an opening bid or otherwise (1H - dbl - 1S*.....). I am saying that L40D is quite specific in saying it is the USE of a convention that may be regulated. It is this power that has been/is used by sundry international and national organisations to ban the psyching of a conventional opening bid (in pairs events for example) without regard to whether or not there is any partnership understanding. The legitimacy of such a regulation has been confirmed by the WBFLC. I am also saying that, since there is no official interpretation to the contrary, a regulating authority, a Director or an AC may decide that a player who will run from a contract if it is doubled can be held not to have shown a willingness to play in it. You may not agree with that decision, any of us may disagree, but looking at it objectively without letting our personal tastes intervene we have no authority by reference to which we may deny it. The laws express the principle; they do not address the evidence upon which it may be implemented, leaving this to RAs acting under the laws. (Has your NBO established a ruling that operates where you play?) In these things I am passing no comment about desirability, I am merely pointing out the now situation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 17:18:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J7Ipt14588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:18:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J7Ikt14584 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:18:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.11]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000719072524.CJPW798.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:25:24 +1200 Message-ID: <000a01bff152$0a457680$0b6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> <003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop> <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:22:02 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I am saying that such a bid fits exactly the > definition of convention as it is written in the > law book, whether an opening bid or otherwise > (1H - dbl - 1S*.....). I am saying that L40D is quite > specific in saying it is the USE of a convention that > may be regulated. It is this power that has been/is > used by sundry international and national > organisations to ban the psyching of a conventional > opening bid (in pairs events for example) without > regard to whether or not there is any partnership > understanding. The legitimacy of such a regulation > has been confirmed by the WBFLC. > I am also saying that, since there is no > official interpretation to the contrary, a regulating > authority, a Director or an AC may decide that a > player who will run from a contract if it is doubled > can be held not to have shown a willingness to > play in it. You may not agree with that decision, > any of us may disagree, but looking at it > objectively without letting our personal tastes > intervene we have no authority by reference to > which we may deny it. It appears to me that you are doing just that by deeming that a psych is conventional but I am not sure you would apply the same judgement to a preference bid or call that a player ran from when subsequently doubled. The definitions of conventional calls do not distinguish between applying that definition to a psyche or to any other call so if running from a psyche makes such a call conventional then running from another call (non-psychic) makes that call conventional also. e.g. You are saying that the 2C call in this auction is evidence of 1NT being conventional 1NT X P P 2C even though 1NT may meet the requirements of the system being played. I may bid this way on xxx xxx Ax AKQxx What I object to is different evidence/standards being applied because someone has a prejudice against psychic calls. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 18:00:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J80En14612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:00:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J804t14608 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:00:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-169.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.169]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17635 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:04:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3974236A.5C9DD08B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:29:14 +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: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 7/17/00 1:32:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > > > You said: > > >this list is a forum of Tournament > > >> >Directors. > > and that is not true. > > Amen. This list, as I was led to believe, is for those who are interested in > the Bridge Laws and would like to discuss them. I strongly am opposed to the > idea that TDs arrive at interpretations from the highly skewed positions of > some who saturuate this list. TOURNAMENT Directors are under the supervision > and direction of their NCBOs when operating under the Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge, 1997. If they have doubt in interpretations of the Laws > they should address themselves to their Laws Commissions for guidance. The > opinions expressed by those who direct duplicate games at various levels and > others whose expertise lies in the use of English and other fields of > endeavor are interesting, ad rem to the purpose of the BLML, respected by me > and some others, but far from directive toward interpretations of Laws as > used by TDs in their work. If the BLML held a 95% opinion opposed to a WBFLC > interpretation it would be unprofessional of me to use the BLML opinion at > WBF events. I would not expect or tolerate assigned assistant TDs to decided > that they were going to provide interpretations different from those approved > by the WBFLC. Nor would I expect or permit an AC to depart from the Laws on > their own cognizance. > Sometimes, in our eagerness to "show our stuff" we step outside our authority > -- ego satisfying and human to be sure, but not professional. > > For someone to continue inane circular reasoning on this subject just makes > the "delete" button so much more useful, though it does clutter up the List. > I'm with Craig Senior, let's move on to things that at least might avoid > repetition ad nauseum and might generate healthy discussion. > > How's that for not naming names? > > Kojak > I was in agreement with Craig to let this matter rest, but now you've brought me back into it. Please remember Kojak, that we are not all Tournament Directors of the ACBL. While what you write above may be true in North America, and probably in England, it is not so for (just one I know) Belgium. Over here, we do not have an NCBO that provides us with interpretations. Rather, the top Directors see one another regularly and national matters are discussed at an informal level. Until four years ago, the top interpretation in Belgium was probably on the telephone between Jan Boets and myself. We discussed the Laws at great length. Since then, blml has taken that place and we now continue the discussion at the bar - from where blml left off. So I strongly believe that for Belgian TD's at least, blml is a valid source of TD education and interpretation. Should this bother the ACBL ? No, certainly not. Is it a problem for an ACBL director to follow the interpretation of BLML ? Is the BLML interpretation different to the ACBL one ? or the WBF one ? I don't think so. And if it is, don't we have yourself, Grattan, and ultimately Ton, to make certain that we do not have : > If the BLML held a 95% opinion opposed to a WBFLC > interpretation -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 18:33:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J8X8914630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:33:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J8X0t14626 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:33:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA00853 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:37:36 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA16788 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:37:35 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:37:34 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 JAA08086 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:37:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA26342 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:37:32 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 09:37:32 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200007190837.JAA26342@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Busy night at the club last night, including one judgement ruling! Must be the heat. This was the most complex ruling I have had at our club in a while. Pairs, dealer North. W N E S 1D P 2C P 3NT P 4NT - P P TD Before West can call over 4NT, North passes and East passes. Now everyone notices what has happened and calls the TD. I am wondering if this is a POOT condoned, with West retaining the right to call if South passes; when North explains that he was trying to alert 4NT. This looks plausible, and East/West agree that this is probably what North was trying to do. Anyone care to try and give the correct ruling, which may be the one I gave :-) 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 18:37:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J8biM14643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J8bat14639 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:37:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA23409 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:42:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 19 10:43:05 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JRY5LM494E001F7I@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:42:25 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:40:02 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:42:10 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Wayne Burrows , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B63C@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > Verzonden: woensdag 19 juli 2000 9:07 > Aan: Wayne Burrows; bridge-laws > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > " Men at some time are masters of their fates " > (Shakespeare) > ================================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Wayne Burrows > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 5:43 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ Well, he has the right to regulate (e.g. ban) > > > use of conventions. Or such uses of them as are > > > thought undesirable. So if a player psyches a bid > > > that is neither 3 cards or more in the suit, nor > > > has high card strength there, nor is willing to play > > > in that denomination (even if doubled), then such > > > use may be forbidden. > > > > Are you saying that opening 1S psychically on singleton spade is > necessarily > > a conventional opening? > Wayne Burrows I carelessly decided to open one of these 'psyches-messages' again. It would have been clearer if Grattan had just answered 'no' on your question. A 1 Spade psyche opening on a singleton spade is not a conventional opening. Grattan what do you mean with 'psyches a bid that IS neither 3 cards ...' etc.? 'IS' by agreement I hope and not by actual shape? Furthermore I feel symphathy with those S.O. who decide that the laws are not meant to decide forbidding psyches on conventional opening bids. (If I remember well WBF and EBL have or had such a regulation for STRONG conventional opening bids.) ton > +=+ I am saying that such a bid fits exactly the > definition of convention as it is written in the > law book, whether an opening bid or otherwise > (1H - dbl - 1S*.....). I am saying that L40D is quite > specific in saying it is the USE of a convention that > may be regulated. It is this power that has been/is > used by sundry international and national > organisations to ban the psyching of a conventional > opening bid (in pairs events for example) without > regard to whether or not there is any partnership > understanding. The legitimacy of such a regulation > has been confirmed by the WBFLC. > I am also saying that, since there is no > official interpretation to the contrary, a regulating > authority, a Director or an AC may decide that a > player who will run from a contract if it is doubled > can be held not to have shown a willingness to > play in it. You may not agree with that decision, > any of us may disagree, but looking at it > objectively without letting our personal tastes > intervene we have no authority by reference to > which we may deny it. The laws express the > principle; they do not address the evidence > upon which it may be implemented, leaving this > to RAs acting under the laws. (Has your NBO > established a ruling that operates where you > play?) > In these things I am passing no comment > about desirability, I am merely pointing out > the now situation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 19:27:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6J9QYs14675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:26:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6J9Q4t14666 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:26:16 +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 LAA23685; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:31:29 +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 LAA21664; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:30:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000719113926.0087a1a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:39:26 +0200 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches In-Reply-To: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:49 18/07/00 -0400, A. L. Edwards wrote: >This question is rather broad. I have a colleague who believes >that a club can 1) forbid psyches and 2) not grant appeals. > At the club he owns/manages/directs, he will not tell the players that >they have a right to appeal his judgement ruling. I pointed >out L83; he said that he reads it as saying he is not required >to permit appeals. 1) It seems reasonable to forbid psyches in low-level club tournaments, as much as it is to compel players to use a "simple system". However, I can't see how this can be enforced. For example, South, 3rd and NV, opens 1S on 4S-333 and a 5-count. If you are called, South might perfectly well tell you he thought his partner opened 1C, and who knows, this might be the truth. We could perhaps be in a "Charlie the chimp" case, where North spoke about the 1C bid on the previous deal :-) or not :-) Since you are not allowed to give A+/A- for such a mistake, and since it would not be right to assess a PP for "not paying due attention" at such a level, what could you do ? Or, The bidding goes 1C-X-1S, on a 1534 pattern, and the "culprit" tells you he thought he had taken out 1S while he wanted to bid 1H. What can you do ? 2) Which club has an appeal committee ? Well, if somebody objects my ruling, I try to assemble a panel of competent players, but this is not always possible. In the best of cases, this would be a very informal AC. However, I've seen players being handed a prize on the following week, and the director tells them the case was discussed in the meantime, and they were found right. Of course it would be wrong to specifically state appeal is not possible ; this goes against the spirit of the laws. But sometimes (often) a makeshift AC is all you can get. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 21:01:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JB1Im14717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:01:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JB15t14713 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.97.128]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000719110558.VMCC26680.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:05:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001701bff171$425490a0$8061ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <200007190837.JAA26342@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:05:11 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 9:37 AM Subject: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT > Busy night at the club last night, including one judgement ruling! > Must be the heat. > > This was the most complex ruling I have had at our club in a while. > > Pairs, dealer North. > > W N E S > 1D P 2C > P 3NT P 4NT > - P P TD > > Before West can call over 4NT, North passes and East passes. > Now everyone notices what has happened and calls the TD. > > I am wondering if this is a POOT condoned, with West retaining > the right to call if South passes; when North explains that he > was trying to alert 4NT. This looks plausible, and East/West > agree that this is probably what North was trying to do. > > Anyone care to try and give the correct ruling, which may be > the one I gave :-) > Nice one. I'm going to rule Law 25A. That N's Pass was inadvertant and that it may be withdrawn and replaced by the call he intended to make which was "no call"as it was not his turn and I rule that he knew this. I allow him to alert. East's pass is withdrawn without penalty (but subject to Law 16C2), it being a pass out of turn caused by North's inadvertancy, and the bidding reverts to West whose turn it was to call. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 22:50:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JCnMC14826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:49:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JCmrt14821 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:49:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04158; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA154461224; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:53:44 -0400 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:53:39 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT To: anne_jones@ntlworld.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Subject: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT > Busy night at the club last night, including one judgement ruling! > Must be the heat. > > This was the most complex ruling I have had at our club in a while. > > Pairs, dealer North. > > W N E S > 1D P 2C > P 3NT P 4NT > - P P TD > > Before West can call over 4NT, North passes and East passes. > Now everyone notices what has happened and calls the TD. > > I am wondering if this is a POOT condoned, with West retaining > the right to call if South passes; when North explains that he > was trying to alert 4NT. This looks plausible, and East/West > agree that this is probably what North was trying to do. > > Anyone care to try and give the correct ruling, which may be > the one I gave :-) > Nice one. I'm going to rule Law 25A. That N's Pass was inadvertant and that it may be withdrawn and replaced by the call he intended to make which was "no call"as it was not his turn and I rule that he knew this. I allow him to alert. East's pass is withdrawn without penalty (but subject to Law 16C2), it being a pass out of turn caused by North's inadvertancy, and the bidding reverts to West whose turn it was to call. Anne Fully agree. N intent was not to P but to alert and P is clearly inadvertant as defined in Law 25A. Partner did not call after this P, so N can withdraw this call. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:34:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDXvj14848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:33:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDXnt14844 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA13824 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:38:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 19 15:39:19 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JRYFXVXELK001FHK@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:38:40 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:36:27 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:38:36 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , Wayne Burrows , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I answered Wayne Burrows as shown: > > > > It would have been clearer if Grattan had just answered 'no' on your > > question. A 1 Spade psyche opening on a singleton spade is not a > > conventional opening. > and asked Grattan for a clarification: > +=+ I thought I had said it clearly enough. > Because of the way the definition of 'convention' > is worded, and our failure to agree action on it, > any bid which does not conform to one of those > three definitions of what is not conventional is > stated to be conventional. One Spade on a > singleton does not conform. ....+=+ Not when it is an agreement, since a convention is an agreement (after I wrote this I went anxiously for my law book and big relief: it was there in the definition of convention. On the other hand nothing related to agreements in the definition of 'psyche'. But a misstatement related to what? Is there anything else than the relation with the agreement made? Otherwise a strong club opening is a psyche in itself, not being related to clubs. The group never drew that conclusion in the messages sent out the last weeks, did you? So in my opinion when a 1 spade opening is not agreed to be a convention a psyche when bidding 1 spade, even if the holding fits with the description, is not a convention either. I don't believe that any committee in the WBF or EBL ever said else. > Perhaps I should tack it on to the agenda for > Maastricht. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > If your answer on Wayne's question (when 1 spade according to the partnership agreement is natural) is 'yes': 'the psyche with 1 spade on a singleton is a convention', it seems necessary to address the subject (unless you agree in being convinced otherwise). ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:37:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDbG814861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:37:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDb9t14857 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:37:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from pc0s01a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.97.193] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Eu4q-00023o-00; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:39:57 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01bff186$d2cc9dc0$c16193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B63C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:20:00 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Wayne Burrows ; bridge-laws Sent: 19 July 2000 09:42 Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > Furthermore I feel symphathy with those S.O. who decide that the laws are > not meant to decide forbidding psyches on conventional opening bids. (If I > remember well WBF and EBL have or had such a regulation for STRONG > conventional opening bids.) > +=+ Sometimes the regulations have said 'strong' sometimes they have merely referred to 'psyching of an opening conventional bid'. At present the WBF does not have this kind of regulation, what we have is 'brown sticker' conventions which are matters of partnership agreement. But the especial circumstance you need to note is that when banning psyches of opening conventional bids, whether specifying strong or not, it has been the MAKING of those bids that has been banned, whether they are the subject of partnership agreements or not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:45:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDjGD14887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDj5t14875 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13EuEa-00008j-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:50:02 +0100 Message-ID: <3gLJdIAehZd5EwAw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:00:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> <003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop> <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott================================= >" Men at some time are masters of their fates " > (Shakespeare) >================================= >----- Original Message ----- >From: Wayne Burrows >To: >Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 5:43 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > +=+ Well, he has the right to regulate (e.g. ban) >> > use of conventions. Or such uses of them as are >> > thought undesirable. So if a player psyches a bid >> > that is neither 3 cards or more in the suit, nor >> > has high card strength there, nor is willing to play >> > in that denomination (even if doubled), then such >> > use may be forbidden. >> >> Are you saying that opening 1S psychically on singleton spade is >necessarily >> a conventional opening? >> >> Wayne Burrows >> >+=+ I am saying that such a bid fits exactly the >definition of convention as it is written in the >law book, whether an opening bid or otherwise >(1H - dbl - 1S*.....). I am saying that L40D is quite >specific in saying it is the USE of a convention that >may be regulated. It is this power that has been/is >used by sundry international and national >organisations to ban the psyching of a conventional >opening bid (in pairs events for example) without >regard to whether or not there is any partnership >understanding. The legitimacy of such a regulation >has been confirmed by the WBFLC. > I am also saying that, since there is no >official interpretation to the contrary, a regulating >authority, a Director or an AC may decide that a >player who will run from a contract if it is doubled >can be held not to have shown a willingness to >play in it. The definition of Convention includes the words "willingness to play", that is true, but also includes the words "by partnership agreement". If a player psyches a 1S bid on a singleton without partnership agreement that does not make it a convention. -- 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:45:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDjJ914888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDj8t14877 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:09 +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 13EuEa-00008i-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:50:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:47:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <3974236A.5C9DD08B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3974236A.5C9DD08B@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >So I strongly believe that for Belgian TD's at least, blml >is a valid source of TD education and interpretation. I believe it is for all countries. Kojak says he would not expect to follow a BLML interpretation that disagrees with a WBF one. Fine, he can find out what the WBF one is: several people cannot. People who read opinions here often do not have a better way of finding out interpretations. >Should this bother the ACBL ? No, certainly not. >Is it a problem for an ACBL director to follow the >interpretation of BLML ? >Is the BLML interpretation different to the ACBL one ? or >the WBF one ? >I don't think so. At the last EBU TD weekend we changed an interpretation because BLML had said we should - or at least some people thereon. -- 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:45:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDjMW14889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDj6t14876 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:10 +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 13EuEa-00008k-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:50:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:05:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime/new host References: <3.0.32.20000719132514.01272d80@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000719132514.01272d80@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >David noted: >>Well, I do not mind the rest, but I am not happy with a footer without >>a sig separator. > >and now it should have one (see this message). No, not so far. A sig sep is a line with 'dash dash space' on. The additional line had 'dash' on. > >Based on other feedback I have also added an extra line (now used by the >sig-sep), and made the divider a bit clearer (==== vs ----) Good idea. Since my last post we have had one which got very close and I was thinking it was confusing. The sig sep plus ==== should sort that. >Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 >email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 >Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 >- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:45:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDjtY14915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDjmt14911 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from p16s11a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.107.23] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13EuDc-0002Pc-00; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:49:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bff188$0d16af60$176b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:47:44 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. ; 'Grattan Endicott' ; Wayne Burrows ; bridge-laws Sent: 19 July 2000 14:38 Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > I answered Wayne Burrows as shown: > > > > > > > > It would have been clearer if Grattan had just answered 'no' on your > > > question. A 1 Spade psyche opening on a singleton spade is not a > > > conventional opening. > > > > and asked Grattan for a clarification: > > > +=+ I thought I had said it clearly enough. > > Because of the way the definition of 'convention' > > is worded, and our failure to agree action on it, > > any bid which does not conform to one of those > > three definitions of what is not conventional is > > stated to be conventional. One Spade on a > > singleton does not conform. ....+=+ > > > Not when it is an agreement, since a convention is an agreement (after I > wrote this I went anxiously for my law book and big relief: it was there in > the definition of convention. On the other hand nothing related to > agreements in the definition of 'psyche'. But a misstatement related to > what? Is there anything else than the relation with the agreement made? > Otherwise a strong club opening is a psyche in itself, not being related to > clubs. The group never drew that conclusion in the messages sent out the > last weeks, did you? > So in my opinion when a 1 spade opening is not agreed to be a convention a > psyche when bidding 1 spade, even if the holding fits with the description, > is not a convention either. I don't believe that any committee in the WBF or > EBL ever said else. > > > > Perhaps I should tack it on to the agenda for > > Maastricht. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > If your answer on Wayne's question (when 1 spade according to the > partnership agreement is natural) is 'yes': 'the psyche with 1 spade on a > singleton is a convention', it seems necessary to address the subject > (unless you agree in being convinced otherwise). > +=+ OK I think I can be convinced. But I think we should minute it in Maastricht since the club where the question arose has taken a different line. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 19 23:46:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JDk6N14925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:46:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JDjkt14910 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:45:58 +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 PAA01061; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:49:29 +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 PAA09772; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:50:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000719155901.00876100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:59:01 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT In-Reply-To: <200007190837.JAA26342@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:37 19/07/00 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >Busy night at the club last night, including one judgement ruling! >Must be the heat. > >This was the most complex ruling I have had at our club in a while. > >Pairs, dealer North. > > W N E S > 1D P 2C > P 3NT P 4NT > - P P TD > >Before West can call over 4NT, North passes and East passes. >Now everyone notices what has happened and calls the TD. > >I am wondering if this is a POOT condoned, with West retaining >the right to call if South passes; when North explains that he >was trying to alert 4NT. This looks plausible, and East/West >agree that this is probably what North was trying to do. > My response according to logic is : The explanation is quite plausible. If everyone agrees that thez most probable explanation is that North inadvertently took the wrong card out of the BB, the director shouldn't rule otherwise. So let him change an inadvertent bid. One can't say there was a pause for reflection ; North simply didn't dare retract his pass, and waited until the director was there. This could hardly be considered wrong, or you'd better prepare yourself for bigger problems next time, as they try and sort it out without the TD. Let the bidding revert to West, don't penalize anyone. If West passes and North passes, East must pass. There is usually a possibility that East's pass tells something to N/S, but I can hardly see how it can be the case here. To cut a long story short, the ruling is the same as if North had passed, then said 'oops, sorry, I merely wanted to alert', retracts his pass, and pulls an Alert card. You have to restore equity, not penalize for the sake of penalizing. With the facts as you prensented them, equity says revert to normal bidding. But, if, as it is the case in Belgium, 4NT is *never* alertable, the story changes a little bit : then North's explanation is less credible, unless it is quite plausible he didn't know he hadn't to alert. One last point : did south react in any manner over North's pass ? If it is the case, you shall rule rectification after reflection. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 00:29:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JETJd14949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:29:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JESvt14945 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:29:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from p31s13a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.93.50] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13EUxj-0004Wc-00; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:50:56 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bff17f$6d9e6160$325d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B63C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:45:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Wayne Burrows ; bridge-laws Sent: 19 July 2000 09:42 Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Grattan Endicott [mailto:Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk] > > Verzonden: woensdag 19 juli 2000 9:07 > > Aan: Wayne Burrows; bridge-laws > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ================================= > > " Men at some time are masters of their fates " > > (Shakespeare) > > ================================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Wayne Burrows > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 5:43 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > It would have been clearer if Grattan had just answered 'no' on your > question. A 1 Spade psyche opening on a singleton spade is not a > conventional opening. > Grattan what do you mean with 'psyches a bid that IS neither 3 cards ...' > etc.? 'IS' by agreement I hope and not by actual shape? > Furthermore I feel symphathy with those S.O. who decide that the laws are > not meant to decide forbidding psyches on conventional opening bids. (If I > remember well WBF and EBL have or had such a regulation for STRONG > conventional opening bids.) > +=+ I thought I had said it clearly enough. Because of the way the definition of 'convention' is worded, and our failure to agree action on it, any bid which does not conform to one of those three definitions of what is not conventional is stated to be conventional. One Spade on a singleton does not conform. We were discussing the position in a certain club and it is plain enough that the Director there has a sound basis for what he is doing as things are, even though we all think we know what we mean by 'convention' and it is not that. The whole thing is messy, wriggle as one may, and no amount of assertion changes the wording of the laws on which the Director in question is entitled to rely. The fact is that, as things are, many kinds of psychic bid are susceptible to regulation - more than have been regulated so far by the WBF, the EBL, the ACBL, etc.etc.etc. Law 40D needs to refer to 'the use of play conventions and of calls that are conventional by partnership's agreement'. This condition is not present in the Law as of now, much as I suspect people have 'seen' it there when reading without due care and attention, and in doing anything about it we must have a careful sensitivity for the system regulations of the august bodies; ham-fisted action could go very wrong. I do not know whether you would think we could manage a footnote to the law on this since we have arrived in the mire? An addition to the law book is noticed, words in our minutes get home to the few. Perhaps I should tack it on to the agenda for Maastricht. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 04:29:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JIRvb15074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:27:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JIRot15070 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.52] (d185fca34.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.52]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29371 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> <003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop> <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:30:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Grattan Endicott" > > Are you saying that opening 1S psychically on singleton spade is >necessarily >> a conventional opening? >> >> Wayne Burrows >> >+=+ I am saying that such a bid fits exactly the >definition of convention as it is written in the >law book, Here I go, "where angels fear to tread" again, but... Grattan, that turns out not to be the case, as a friend of mine likes to say. The definition in the laws uses the phrase "by partnership agreement". Since "convention" explicitly includes "partnership agreement" and psyching explicitly _precludes_ such agreement (via Law 40), a (legal) psyche _cannot_ fit the law book's definition of convention. One could, in theory, have a "partnership agreement" to psyche, making such psyches conventions, but such agreements are illegal, are they not? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOXX0TL2UW3au93vOEQKHgwCg7SytGnoxOtj05xYWIv+A9FnuaTkAoJOu E4zQN7o2QpXw2lCPGVNroY9G =Pmc1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 05:35:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JJZ0t15110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:35:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JJYst15106 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:34:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6JJXcZ02901 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:33:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007191933.e6JJXcZ02901@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:33:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 19, 2000 02:30:22 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes: > > One could, in theory, have a "partnership agreement" to psyche, I know that at one time Silver/Litvac played what Eric Kokish called mandatory psyches. K/S style systemic psches, but mandatory if you held a hand which met the definition. Which is not to say they didn't psyche in other ways. Saying they psyched frequently is to understate things. > making such psyches conventions, but such agreements are illegal, are > they not? I don't think so. Certainly they can be regulated. I do know they played these methods in trials for Canada's Bermuda Bowl team. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 05:37:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JJbI615124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:37:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JJbCt15120 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:37:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05695; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:38:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200007191938.MAA05695@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:30:22 PDT." Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:38:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > One could, in theory, have a "partnership agreement" to psyche, > making such psyches conventions, but such agreements are illegal, are > they not? I haven't been following this thread, but it seems to me that an "agreement to psych" is illegal according to the laws of logic---i.e. it makes no semantic sense at all. A "psychic call" is, by definition, a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length". "Misstatement" implies that the call is in violation of partnership agreement, since a call cannot make a "statement" except in the context of [explicit or implied] partnership agreements. So a psychic call is, among other things, one that violates partnership agreements. Now, how could have a partnership agreement to make calls that violate partnership agreements? Wouldn't that make such a psychic call one that simultaneously conforms to and violates partnership agreements? Did I just hear Schroedinger's cat meow? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 05:44:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JJi6H15140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:44:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JJhit15136 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16065 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007191949.PAA16065@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] So, how far backwards do you have to bend? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:49:50 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry about the "x"es, it's as the problem was given to me. Matchpoints, vulnerability unknown and field not great. Axx AKJx xx N S Q9xx 1NT(12-14) 2D(1) 3D(2) 4H(3) xxx AP 9 AKJxxx AKT 1) System is Game-forcing Stayman, Announced as Transfer to Hearts. 2) Not Alerted, unasked. Meant as max, 4 hearts, small doubleton diamond. Systemically, shows 5-card diamonds, no 4-card Major. 3) Splinter, knowing it was going to be passed...Not Alerted. At the end of the auction, S announces that 2D was GF Stayman, not a transfer, but not that 4H was a splinter (which would have been a Delayed Alert in the ACBL, ie given after three passes and before the opening lead). When declarer gets in, he plays the H9 and floats it to East's HQ. The diamonds don't work and he takes the 9 available tricks, -1. However, assuming the DQ had been dropping...what do you do when 4H+2, and West states that had he known that 4H was a splinter, he would have covered the H9 with the HT? Would things change if you were told that S did not correct the MI about the heart transfer? Would things be different if W had HT8xx or HT876? Note that a CC is available, to the opponents, and clearly states that 2D is Forcing Stayman. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 05:55:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JJtaL15153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:55:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JJtWt15149 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:55:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.80]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000719200025.RGAS17302284.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:00:25 +1200 Message-ID: <004501bff1bb$bda133e0$506860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B63C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000f01bff186$d2cc9dc0$c16193c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:58:40 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Sometimes the regulations have said > 'strong' sometimes they have merely referred > to 'psyching of an opening conventional bid'. > At present the WBF does not have this kind > of regulation, what we have is 'brown sticker' > conventions which are matters of partnership > agreement. But the especial circumstance > you need to note is that when banning > psyches of opening conventional bids, If my agreement is that when I open 1S I am willing to play in spades and that my agreement is that I make that bid on some range of hands of more than " a king or more below average strength" THEN I have not seen anything in the laws that allows any RA to ban my psyching of such a bid. > whether specifying strong or not, it has been > the MAKING of those bids that has been > banned, whether they are the subject of > partnership agreements or not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 06:09:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JK9HA15170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:09:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r18.mx.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JK9Bt15166 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:09:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id r.bc.809839f (3314); Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:13:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:13:53 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/19/00 3:44:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > I haven't been following this thread, but it seems to me that an > "agreement to psych" is illegal according to the laws of logic---i.e. > it makes no semantic sense at all. A "psychic call" is, by > definition, a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or > suit length". "Misstatement" implies that the call is in violation of > partnership agreement, since a call cannot make a "statement" except > in the context of [explicit or implied] partnership agreements. So a > psychic call is, among other things, one that violates partnership > agreements. Now, how could have a partnership agreement to make calls > that violate partnership agreements? Wouldn't that make such a > psychic call one that simultaneously conforms to and violates > partnership agreements? Did I just hear Schroedinger's cat meow? > > -- Adam Careful, Adam, you are falling into the trap of clear thinking, which isn't always productive in BLML. I think the main point beyond what you say, if there is one, is that those agreements which include what otherwise would be a psychic call are illegal, fattening, and usually prohibited by the SO. Kojak -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 06:14:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JKELG15186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:14:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JKEHt15182 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.91]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000719201911.RLKY17302284.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:19:11 +1200 Message-ID: <005901bff1be$5c4577c0$506860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca><000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona><003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop><001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> <3gLJdIAehZd5EwAw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:16:51 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > The definition of Convention includes the words "willingness to play", > that is true, but also includes the words "by partnership agreement". > If a player psyches a 1S bid on a singleton without partnership > agreement that does not make it a convention. > I agree. But further even if my "psych" becomes an implicit agreement, as some here would have it, many psychs would IMO still not be subject to regulation as if the player making the psych is willing to play in the denomination named and therefore the agreement is not a convention. Also IMO it is a distortion of the definition to add to "willing to play...", "...even if doubled". I have earlier given some examples of clearly non-psych bids/calls that are willing to play in a denomination but will run if doubled. As an aside, in fact here is a good example from Tuesday night Axxxx x Qx AKxxx - KQJxxxx x xxx xxxxxx KJx QJxxxx - x AKQJxxxx Ax xx W N E S - 1S P 6H* P P X 6NT All Pass The bidding was unscientific but according to Grattan's reading 6H was a convention because the playing was unwilling to play that denomination after the lightner double. Tongue in cheeck... Now I want redress because there was no prior announcement of that conventional agreement. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 06:51:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6JKoWx15205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:50:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6JKoPt15201 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 06:50:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13F0s8-00066e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:55:16 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000719224829.00f3f180@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:48:29 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000719155901.00876100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200007190837.JAA26342@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk well, in the first place we use 29a. the pass out of rotation is condoned, so no penalties. then we use 34 to let w bid if the last bid is a pass. quite simple i think] regards, anton At 03:59 PM 7/19/00 +0200, you wrote: >At 09:37 19/07/00 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >>Busy night at the club last night, including one judgement ruling! >>Must be the heat. >> >>This was the most complex ruling I have had at our club in a while. >> >>Pairs, dealer North. >> >> W N E S >> 1D P 2C >> P 3NT P 4NT >> - P P TD >> >>Before West can call over 4NT, North passes and East passes. >>Now everyone notices what has happened and calls the TD. >> >>I am wondering if this is a POOT condoned, with West retaining >>the right to call if South passes; when North explains that he >>was trying to alert 4NT. This looks plausible, and East/West >>agree that this is probably what North was trying to do. >> >My response according to logic is : > >The explanation is quite plausible. >If everyone agrees that thez most probable explanation is that North >inadvertently took the wrong card out of the BB, the director shouldn't >rule otherwise. >So let him change an inadvertent bid. One can't say there was a pause for >reflection ; North simply didn't dare retract his pass, and waited until >the director was there. >This could hardly be considered wrong, or you'd better prepare yourself for >bigger problems next time, as they try and sort it out without the TD. > >Let the bidding revert to West, don't penalize anyone. >If West passes and North passes, East must pass. >There is usually a possibility that East's pass tells something to N/S, but >I can hardly see how it can be the case here. > >To cut a long story short, the ruling is the same as if North had passed, >then said 'oops, sorry, I merely wanted to alert', retracts his pass, and >pulls an Alert card. You have to restore equity, not penalize for the sake >of penalizing. With the facts as you prensented them, equity says revert >to normal bidding. > >But, if, as it is the case in Belgium, 4NT is *never* alertable, the story >changes a little bit : then North's explanation is less credible, unless it >is quite plausible he didn't know he hadn't to alert. > >One last point : did south react in any manner over North's pass ? If it is >the case, you shall rule rectification after reflection. > > Alain. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 10:09:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6K08iC15349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:08:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6K08at15345 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:08:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=antonwit) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13F3xx-0000KR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:13:29 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000720020642.00f4acf0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:06:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:13 PM 7/19/00 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 7/19/00 3:44:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@irvine.com >writes: > >> I haven't been following this thread, but it seems to me that an >> "agreement to psych" is illegal according to the laws of logic---i.e. >> it makes no semantic sense at all. A "psychic call" is, by >> definition, a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or >> suit length". "Misstatement" implies that the call is in violation of >> partnership agreement, since a call cannot make a "statement" except >> in the context of [explicit or implied] partnership agreements. So a >> psychic call is, among other things, one that violates partnership >> agreements. Now, how could have a partnership agreement to make calls >> that violate partnership agreements? Wouldn't that make such a >> psychic call one that simultaneously conforms to and violates >> partnership agreements? Did I just hear Schroedinger's cat meow? >> >> -- Adam >Careful, Adam, you are falling into the trap of clear thinking, which isn't >always productive in BLML. I think the main point beyond what you say, if >there is one, is that those agreements which include what otherwise would be >a psychic call are illegal, fattening, and usually prohibited by the SO. > no problem, but i think NO club can deni a player to appeal. his right to appeal is within the law and cant denied by ANY club regards, anton >Kojak >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 12:47:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6K2kck15415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:46:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6K2kWt15411 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:46:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.52] (d185fca34.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.52]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01813 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:44:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200007191938.MAA05695@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200007191938.MAA05695@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:47:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Adam Beneschan >Now, how could have a partnership agreement to make calls >that violate partnership agreements? Wouldn't that make such a >psychic call one that simultaneously conforms to and violates >partnership agreements? Did I just hear Schroedinger's cat meow? LOL! Yeah, you probably did. :-) 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/AwUBOXZpKr2UW3au93vOEQJwNQCdHCDyQ6bMWC25o372IhZ3A43mdsIAnRsG YN0D5SEZYJYw62SW8zfqCOKV =tpWr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 20:24:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KAO7h15595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:24:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KAO0t15591 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07584 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:28:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3976BE6A.A55B6925@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:55:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: ADMINISTRIVIA: BLML downtime. This time, for real... References: <3.0.32.20000717151745.01160110@acsys.anu.edu.au> <3972F3B4.9BF4B14B@village.uunet.be> <200007181653.MAA17532@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > On 17 July 2000 at 13:53, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >> > >> "Say goodnight, Irene." > >> > >> "Goodnight Irene".... > > > >Who is Irene ? > > > ...thus dating himself to be not old enough to remember when my > countrymen marched through his country (OK, I'm playing a bit, but it is > shown to be sung in many war movies of shortly thereafter - if they're > allowed to play with dates of popularity, so can I). > I should have asked my mother. I've now told her about this, and she's been singing all morning. "Sometimes I walk in the shadow, sometimes I walk in the sun" "Sometimes I'm glad, sometimes I'm blue" "It all depends on you" "Goodnight Irene, I see you in my dreams" How did she do ? > -- > "Working with Gracie was easy. I walked on stage and said 'Gracie, > how's your brother?', and she talked for 38 years." - George Burns > "Bridge is a game that separates the men from the boys. It also > separates husbands and wives." - George Burns > Oh, yes, I forgot, George Burns was the world's oldest bridge player. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 20:24:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KAMOd15588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KAMFt15579 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07292 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:27:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39757EC0.CDC2932F@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:11:12 +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: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > This question is rather broad. I have a colleague who believes > that a club can 1) forbid psyches and 2) not grant appeals. > At the club he owns/manages/directs, he will not tell the players that > they have a right to appeal his judgement ruling. I pointed > out L83; he said that he reads it as saying he is not required > to permit appeals. This is not a problem. At the Royal Squeeze, we have also said we do not allow appeals. If there is a discussion, a panel of wise men from the club sit together and give the TD their opinion. Usually he (I) follows this. But regardless of all that, there has been no appeal, only a ruling. For appeals we turn to the district AC (of which I am chairman) after which the players can go to the NCBO (of whose AC I am the chairman - I really should give up one of them). So not having an AC at the venue need not be a problem. Players always retain their right to have an AC, by the Lawbook. > There is another club in the area with which he is associated. He plays, > and sometimes directs, there. This club owner has banned psyches: a player > psyches, automatic A+/A-. My colleague not only follows this policy when > directing there, but defends it. That of course is a different matter. But if the players agree to play there, and they have had their say - both democratically and with their feet - I doubt if an AC will rule the regulation illegal, after its application. > Needless to say, I think both the practice of an automatic penalty > for a psyche and the policy of deliberately refusing to tell the players > they have a right to appeal/refusing to hear appeals are wrong. He claims > that both are just good business practices; the players won't be annoyed > by psyches, and the game won't be disrupted by appeals. I have tried to > change his mind using the Lawbook, but without much success. > Any other sources/arguements I might try? Thanks. > Tony (aka ac342) > > ps my colleague is an ACBL director (sectionals/regionals); he is also > a good friend and occasional employer :-) > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 20:24:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KAMQH15589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KAMIt15581 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07318 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:27:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3975801C.58AD252D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:17:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <200007181649.MAA25833@freenet10.carleton.ca> <000b01bff135$b84d5620$a05608c3@dodona> <003601bff13b$e20f9620$b36860cb@laptop> <001501bff150$1086a340$ea5408c3@dodona> <000a01bff152$0a457680$0b6860cb@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > e.g. You are saying that the 2C call in this auction is evidence of 1NT > being conventional > > 1NT X P P > 2C > > even though 1NT may meet the requirements of the system being played. > > I may bid this way on > > xxx > xxx > Ax > AKQxx > > What I object to is different evidence/standards being applied because > someone has a prejudice against psychic calls. > > Wayne Burrows > I wholly concur with this last sentence. Many of the methods used by "anti-psychers" are so diffuse that they should also apply to every-day situations, where no-one dreams of applying them. That being said, I agree with Grattan that the Laws apparently allow a SO to ban things that are regularly called psyches. I do not believe however that an SO should ban these things. Nor do I believe that it is the intention of the several SO's that we know the regulations of, to ban these things. Nor do I believe that those regulations actually ban these things. But that is another thread. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 20:24:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KAMGE15578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KAM9t15573 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-197.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.197]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07273 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:26:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3975672C.2DC0242E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:30:36 +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: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000718090115.28087.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I really like the contributions Todd makes to this thread. Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > > > Of course, coping > > > increases your odds, but it doesn't make this sort of bid any less > > > advantageous. Also, risk factor of a psych is not a concept that the > >law > > > recognizes. > > > >We are not talking Law, we are trying to establish criteria. > > You seem to imply that because your opponents are able to cope with the > H1H that it is more suitable to being allowed than other sorts of psyches. Yes it is. As you yourself point out below. One reason for banning a particular bid is because opponents cannot cope. So them being able to cope should make them "more allowable" (I'm not saying allowed). > I'm arguing that ability for opponents to cope should not be a criteria for > whether or not a psych should be allowed. Yes, some bids may be banned > because your opponents cannot cope (e.g., 1NT, first chair, all the time, > regardless of your hand). But that is not germane to the psyching problem. > Yes it is. For precisely that reason. > If we're talking about criteria, I would add: > 1) systemic catching of psyches (a bid that reveals some other bid as a > psych) is sufficient to rule a psych illegal. Agreed 110%. > 2) the absence of a systemic catch is not sufficient to allow a psych. When we find some other criterium that makes the psyche illegal. What criterium ? > 3) systemic responses to the psyched bid can be used to rule a psych > illegal, but are never evidence that a psych is legal. Define systemic responses in some good manner and I would say that they would always make the psyche illegal. (*) > 4) ability or inability to cope should not be used to decide whether or not > a psych is legal. I believe it is inherent in the definition of banned (or restricted systems). There are different rules at the one level and at the two and three level. This must be because at either level, the risk/problem ratio is different. When you open at the three level, you yourself are having problems to cope. At the one level these problems are more easily solved. > 5) the risk factor for a bad score should not be used to decide whether or > not a psych is legal. Perhaps not. But I don't consider a totally risk-free bid a psyche. > 6) the success rate of a psych should not be used to decide whether or not a > psych is legal. Of course not. I believe that the zero-point opening in third is very successful. Pity it never turns up ! > 7) any bid that when revealed as a psych gives a player's partner UI, should > be illegal. > Aha. This is a circular reasoning, Todd. The information that my partner gets fro his experience with me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. If you call it UI because it is illegal, and you call it illegal because it is UI, you have stated nothing. With a rule like this, you are immediately into once-a-lifetime territory. This last rule of yours cannot be correct. > > > It's a daunting task to discern whether or not a particular bidding > > > system allows opponents to cope or not. > > > >I don't see why opponents should be able to cope ? > > Neither do I, but that's the game as it's currently regulated (to some > extent). > Well, a 4Sp opener is not yet banned. Yet extremely difficult to cope with. It must be the ratio between opponents coping / partner coping=risk that determines whether a system is regulated. The H1H is very easy to cope with (by opponents). > > > >UI is not a problem, as we have often stated. It is only a > >problem because they won't let me give correct info to > >opponents. > > Current rules of the game don't allow that. I believe that H1H is > currently illegal. I'm still undecided whether or not it should be. I > think that if it were kosher that it should be considered a two-way bid and > not a psyche. > I believe that if it IS illegal, and I don't think it is, it is because the regulations are badly written or wrongly interpreted. (*) I am deliberately using Todd's words here "illegal psyche". The psyche itself can never be illegal. The psyche can be systemic, and the system illegal. I hope that Todd agrees with me that this is what he means with illegal psyche. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 20 22:29:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KCT7V15727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:29:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KCT0t15723 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:29:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from p90s05a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.117.145] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13FFUA-0002fE-00; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:31:30 -0700 Message-ID: <000e01bff246$787aa7c0$917593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3974236A.5C9DD08B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:39:27 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 18 July 2000 10:29 Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try --------------- \x/ --------------- > So I strongly believe that for Belgian TD's at least, blml > is a valid source of TD education and interpretation. > > Should this bother the ACBL ? No, certainly not. > Is it a problem for an ACBL director to follow the > interpretation of BLML ? > Is the BLML interpretation different to the ACBL one ? or > the WBF one ? > I don't think so. > > And if it is, don't we have yourself, Grattan, and > ultimately Ton, to make certain that we do not have : > +=+ Ahime. I suppose I have Kojak to thank for this renewed assault. And I do understand that if your NBO and your Zone do not meet your needs you have to do something to fill the void. What I do not then follow is your reason for continuing the circle of argument when you find, amidst all the opinion, that authorized rulings can be quoted, from the WBF or the EBL which, by your own sayso, should settle a matter - and for some us do settle it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 01:14:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KFDNM15804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:13:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KFDHt15800 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:13:18 +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 13FI5I-000Oe2-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:18:04 +0100 Message-ID: <$mGrMPApovd5EwBa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:10:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] L25A MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Declarer puts outs out a green Stop card, and LHO ... What I mean is that declarer intended to pull out a Stop card, let us say before bidding 3C [as happened twice in Lancaster recently], but he actually pulled out a pass card. As soon as he realised, he tried to change it: as his partner had not called, he was allowed to change it under L25A. However, after his pass card, his LHO bid Stop 2NT in one case, and Stop 3D in the other. This may be withdrawn under L21B, of course. But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 01:52:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KFpvb15836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:51:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KFpnt15826 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:51:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-44.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.44]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26034 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:56:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:08:08 +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: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > Not when it is an agreement, since a convention is an agreement (after I > wrote this I went anxiously for my law book and big relief: it was there in > the definition of convention. On the other hand nothing related to > agreements in the definition of 'psyche'. But a misstatement related to > what? Is there anything else than the relation with the agreement made? > Otherwise a strong club opening is a psyche in itself, not being related to > clubs. The group never drew that conclusion in the messages sent out the > last weeks, did you? > So in my opinion when a 1 spade opening is not agreed to be a convention a > psyche when bidding 1 spade, even if the holding fits with the description, > is not a convention either. I don't believe that any committee in the WBF or > EBL ever said else. > > > Perhaps I should tack it on to the agenda for > > Maastricht. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > All this for what exactly ? Grattan wants to call psyches conventions. A mini no-trump cannot have conventions over it in the ACBL. Some people in Canada want to be able to ban psyches. And so on. Why don't we just interpret L40D to say "an SO can ban anything it likes", as this seems to be what they want to do. Then we can go back to deciding whether or not the H1H should be banned, and if it currently is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 05:51:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KJoai15937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:50:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f25.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.25]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KJoVt15933 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:50:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:55:13 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.18 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:55:13 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2000 19:55:13.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AF577E0:01BFF284] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > Declarer puts outs out a green Stop card, and LHO ... > > What I mean is that declarer intended to pull out a Stop card, let us >say before bidding 3C [as happened twice in Lancaster recently], but he >actually pulled out a pass card. > > As soon as he realised, he tried to change it: as his partner had not >called, he was allowed to change it under L25A. > > However, after his pass card, his LHO bid Stop 2NT in one case, and >Stop 3D in the other. This may be withdrawn under L21B, of course. > > But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? I assume that LHO is a non-offender. 16C. The withdrawn auction is AI to LHO and his partner and UI to their opponents. -Todd (wondering what the catch is) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 06:36:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KKaUI15963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 06:36:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KKaNt15959 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 06:36:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.194] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FN7g-0001G7-00; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:40:49 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:41:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > All this for what exactly ? > > Grattan wants to call psyches conventions. > A mini no-trump cannot have conventions over it in the ACBL. > Some people in Canada want to be able to ban psyches. > And so on. > +=+ No, I do not 'want' anything. I am interested in clarifying. I gave Wayne a bum steer - culpa mea stupidly not stopping to read the law again, but I am satisfied that the psyche of a call that is conventional according to the partnership's understandings (if not psyched) can be regulated as a convention. It is not only in Canada that many people want to ban psyches; I have a list of places - the latest addition is Wales. For the General Review of the laws 2002-2005 one proposition that will be on the table will be to remove the word 'convention' from the law book and refer to 'partnership understanding' instead. The world is ready for this, in the sense that we already have sanctions in areas that neither involve conventions nor initial actions on hands a King or more below average strength, sanctions that are legitimately imposed through regulation. If the world is determined to do it the laws committee would look foolish (and rather flat)if it were to lie down in front of the steamroller. As to your H1H ... discussion is boring. Do you know of any of the world's bridge authorities that would agree with a contention that there is no partnership understanding involved? - any authority, that is, except maybe Belgium, where you say you make the law anyway. (I am not clear whether you are allowed to get away with it in England, but if so surely it cannot be for long.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 07:10:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KL9es15985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:09:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KL9Xt15981 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:09:34 +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 NAA19783 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:14:19 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:14:19 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I gave an incorrect ruling at the club last night, thanks to glancing too hastily at L31. In second seat a player made an OBOOT of 1S, not accepted, and the real opener bid 2D, weak. I told second seat he could pass or make any legal bid but couldn't double, and explained that his partner had to pass once over spades and forever over anything else. Now looking back a L31, I see that the OBOOTer *is* allowed to make any legal call, including a "takeout"-but-partner-is-barred double. Thiscould well be an ussue on the actual cards, since OBOOTer had 5 spades and 5 diamonds. (He played 2S making 4, and might have gotten 500 against 2Dx.) L23 still applies, and L31A2 contains a pointer to L23 (damaging enforced pass) explicitly. If the OBOOTer had doubled and gotten a good score I would instinctively be inclined to adjust the score. I am not sure I should. Anyway, two questions: 1. Suppose I explain correctly, OBOOTer doubles and gets his 500, opener is miffed that his opponents gained the chance to double and set him because of their irregularity. L23 says "if the offender at the time of his irregularity could have known" etc etc - this seems to say that, since I don't believe *at the time he made the 1S call*, offender was attempting to penalize the as-yet-unmentioned diamonds, there is no redress. This would, of course, entage the non-offending opener, and I would have to agree it doesn't seem fair. Is this really the right ruling? 2. L27B2 contains the same pointer to L23, so if someone intentionally made an insufficient bid to bar partner and then corrected it to Double, it would be clear to take the score away from him. But we bar correction of an insufficient bid to a double outright. Why the need to treat these two situations differently? GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 07:12:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KLCGm16001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:12:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KLCAt15997 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA11470 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA26371 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:16:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007202116.RAA26371@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > What I mean is that declarer intended to pull out a Stop card, let us > say before bidding 3C [as happened twice in Lancaster recently], but he > actually pulled out a pass card. > > As soon as he realised, he tried to change it: as his partner had not > called, he was allowed to change it under L25A. > > However, after his pass card, his LHO bid Stop 2NT in one case, and > Stop 3D in the other. This may be withdrawn under L21B, of course. > > But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? All :-) we have to do is determine who is an OS and who an NOS. It seems clear that dealer's side is an OS, so the information is UI to them. True, L16C refers to "infraction," and it may be a slight stretch to call putting out the wrong card an infraction, but even if not, I think L16C2, which refers only to "withdrawn action," stands on its own. And no doubt putting out a bid card instead of the intended stop card violates correct procedure; maybe that makes it an infraction. Either way, I'm confident L16C2 applies. (Memo to Grattan: should the next Laws revision change 'infraction' to 'irregularity'? I'm asking; not suggesting! The correct choice is far from clear to me.) On the story as told, it isn't obvious that second hand has done anything wrong. But I really wonder how events transpired that he got out both a stop card and a bid before dealer had corrected his pass or at least had begun to indicate that a correction was about to be made. I think the TD needs to investigate. If second hand indeed acted in proper tempo (and dealer was remarkably slow in reacting to his "green stop card"), then L16C1 applies, and the information is AI to second and fourth hands. But if second hand violated proper tempo or procedure, then L16C2 applies, and the information is UI for both sides. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 07:28:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KLRxO16014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:27:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KLRqt16010 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:27:53 +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 RAA12059 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA26396 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:32:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007202132.RAA26396@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > I don't believe *at the time he made the 1S call*, offender was attempting > to penalize the as-yet-unmentioned diamonds, there is no redress. Right. Seems obvious. How could a player looking at a goodish 5-5 (at least enough to open) possibly think it would make sense to bar partner? > This > would, of course, entage the non-offending opener, and I would have to > agree it doesn't seem fair. I don't see why it seems unfair or why a player should be "entaged" or even angry. Annoyed or irritated, sure; it's always bad luck when the opponents do something silly that happens to work. But it isn't rare or unfair. Most of us have learned to laugh when it happens. We've all had lots of practice, alas. > 2. L27B2 contains the same pointer to L23, so if someone intentionally > made an insufficient bid to bar partner and then corrected it to Double, > it would be clear to take the score away from him. But we bar correction > of an insufficient bid to a double outright. > > Why the need to treat these two situations differently? The real answer is probably history, but simplicity is a very good reason, too. A player could never get (and keep) a good score by doubling, so let's just prohibit the double and save everyone some time. Good players could work out not to double, but it probably wouldn't be obvious to most players, so why not give them a little help? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 08:24:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KMNq516044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:23:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f238.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.238]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6KMNkt16040 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:23:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 45388 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jul 2000 22:28:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000720222827.45387.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.134.248.18 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:28:27 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:28:27 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael > > You seem to imply that because your opponents are able to cope with >the > > H1H that it is more suitable to being allowed than other sorts of >psyches. > >Yes it is. As you yourself point out below. One reason for >banning a particular bid is because opponents cannot cope. >So them being able to cope should make them "more allowable" >(I'm not saying allowed). But the decision to ban that bid is not based on whether or not it is a psych. Some bids may be both destructive and psyches, but the ability to cope is a problem related to destructive bids and not psyches. > > 2) the absence of a systemic catch is not sufficient to allow a psych. > >When we find some other criterium that makes the psyche >illegal. What criterium ? Any other criterium. If the psych is illegal, it remains that way whether or not there's a systemic catch. > > 3) systemic responses to the psyched bid can be used to rule a psych > > illegal, but are never evidence that a psych is legal. > >Define systemic responses in some good manner and I would >say that they would always make the psyche illegal. (*) Hmmm, my phrasing was perhaps a bit too subtle. If my systemic responses to 1H are 1S = 4+ spades, some hcp, 1NT = 5-12HCP, 2C = .... We may find that if I psych 1H, the responses may provide a catch. It's a vaguer statement of 1+2 previously. > > 4) ability or inability to cope should not be used to decide whether or >not > > a psych is legal. > >I believe it is inherent in the definition of banned (or >restricted systems). There are different rules at the one >level and at the two and three level. This must be because >at either level, the risk/problem ratio is different. When >you open at the three level, you yourself are having >problems to cope. At the one level these problems are more >easily solved. As I said before, I don't believe this is germane to the psyching problem. Destructive bids will be banned for the reason that they are destructive. Then you needn't even bother thinking whether or not it was a psych. It's already banned. > > 5) the risk factor for a bad score should not be used to decide whether >or > > not a psych is legal. > >Perhaps not. But I don't consider a totally risk-free bid a >psyche. A risk-free bid may fall under the idea of systemic catch. I still want to take-out double holding 5440 yarboroughs. I'll pass for the rest of the auction and it's risk-free. It's still a psych. It's a gross misstatement of my hand. > > 6) the success rate of a psych should not be used to decide whether or >not a > > psych is legal. > >Of course not. I believe that the zero-point opening in >third is very successful. Pity it never turns up ! > > > 7) any bid that when revealed as a psych gives a player's partner UI, >should > > be illegal. > >Aha. This is a circular reasoning, Todd. > >The information that my partner gets fro his experience with >me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. Quote please? >If you call it UI because it is illegal, and you call it >illegal because it is UI, you have stated nothing. >With a rule like this, you are immediately into >once-a-lifetime territory. This last rule of yours cannot >be correct. I fail to see the loop. The entire point of banning psyches at the moment is that there develops a concealed partnership understanding. 75B states that the implicit agreement must be disclosed. Your particular problem is that should you disclose H1H with its meaning, it's still banned for being a too-weak, two-way opener. >Well, a 4Sp opener is not yet banned. Yet extremely >difficult to cope with. It must be the ratio between >opponents coping / partner coping=risk that determines >whether a system is regulated. It's simultaneously a constructive bid. > > Current rules of the game don't allow that. I believe that H1H is > > currently illegal. I'm still undecided whether or not it should be. I > > think that if it were kosher that it should be considered a two-way bid >and > > not a psyche. > >I believe that if it IS illegal, and I don't think it is, it >is because the regulations are badly written or wrongly >interpreted. I just think that they're unfavorable. >(*) I am deliberately using Todd's words here "illegal >psyche". The psyche itself can never be illegal. The >psyche can be systemic, and the system illegal. I hope that >Todd agrees with me that this is what he means with illegal >psyche. No, I don't agree. If my convention card says that 1C is a strong artificial bid, then I cannot psych a 1C opening (say, holding long diamonds hoping partner bids 1D in response). The system is legal, the psych is not systemic, yet it's still an illegal psych. At least this is the case in the ACBL, IIRC. I still wonder about the exact reasoning behing this one, but I think it's reasonable. And I wonder a little bit about 75B/fielding psyches. It seems to imply that any fielded psych, regardless of how the psych is exposed, is illegal. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 08:43:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KMhUa16081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:43:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KMhOt16077 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:43:24 +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 SAA14049 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA26527 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:48:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007202248.SAA26527@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > I still > want to take-out double holding 5440 yarboroughs. I'll pass for the rest of > the auction and it's risk-free. It's still a psych. It's a gross > misstatement of my hand. I don't understand the above. If you agree that your takeout doubles include the above and properly disclose the agreement, it isn't a psych. It's a legal agreement in the ACBL, by the way, although it requires a pre-alert. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 08:50:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6KMo6K16097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:50:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6KMo2t16093 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:50:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.91]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000720225605.ZORT1065.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:56:05 +1200 Message-ID: <002501bff29d$403d2700$5b6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:52:16 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ No, I do not 'want' anything. I am interested > in clarifying. I gave Wayne a bum steer - culpa mea > stupidly not stopping to read the law again, but I > am satisfied that the psyche of a call that is > conventional according to the partnership's > understandings (if not psyched) can be regulated > as a convention. It is not only in Canada that > many people want to ban psyches; I have a list > of places - the latest addition is Wales. I simply do not understand this view at all. Bridge is a rich game involving logic, judgement, human error, psychology and deception. Each of these facits enhances the game. I enjoy each of these facits of the game. I enjoy the challenge of logically working out a defensive or declarer play. I enjoy the challenge of judging when to bid one more and when not to. I enjoy the challenge of avoiding simple human error even when I know what I should do. I enjoy the challenge of outwitting the opponent in competitive bidding or in the play with false cards and deceptive plays. And I enjoy the challenge of of choosing when to deceive opponents and partner through pyschic calls and to counter the opponents attempts to deceive me. These deceptions are in some ways extreme cases of applying psychology and judgement. Deceptions, bluff and counter bluff are part of many games and sports and I cannot imagine those things being banned from any other game. In Rugby a player may throw a dummy pass to deceive the opponent. In Cricket a bowler often attempts to deceive the batsman as to the type of delivery being bowled. I am sure a similar thing happens in Baseball. In many team sports the a player feints that he will move one way attempting to deceive the defender. A similar thing happens in tennis when a player will line up to play a cross court shot and at the last moment hit the ball down the line attempting to deceive the opponent. Playing Canasta the other night I pitched a card that I wanted attempting to deceive the opponents. There are many more examples. Each of these examples enhances the game(s) of which they are a part. Having said all of this I acknowledge that there are some problems with deception peculiar to bridge. Those problems are based on the requirement to disclose information to your opponents and that you have a partner who will act on your call. It seems to me that the administraters would be better concentrating their efforts on ensuring reasonable disclosure and making realistic definitions of concealed (or otherwise) partnership agreements. That is not some arbitrary rule of one (or any other number) instance creates an agreement. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 10:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L0ULU16146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:30:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L0UCt16138 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:30:13 +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 13FQm8-000OZo-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:34:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:16:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Ely, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde * Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind * TC (the cat) Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen * Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 10:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L0UKq16145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:30:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L0UCt16137 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:30:13 +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 13FQm8-000OZn-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:34:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:51:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Misinformation MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AQxx W N E S N/N-S Jxx KJT9 1N P 2D 1# Ax 3C 2# P 3H X xxx xxx 4C P P X x Q9xx AP Ax Q8xxx KQT9xxx xx 1# Game-forcing Stayman KJTx 2# Natural per system Result AKTxx 4C*-2 xx NS+500 Jx East alerted West's 3C and described it as clubs and hearts. OK, so how do you adjust? 4H or 4S can score any number of tricks between nine and twelve. BTW, this is before August 1st, so L12C3 is not enabled for hte Director - it was in England. You might ask South how he has been damaged. "I don't know," he says helpfully, "but I would not have bid 4H if 4C comes round to me even if correctly informed." -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 10:55:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L0sqU16171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:54:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L0skt16167 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.253.88.110]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000721005930.JQGR16423.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:59:30 +0100 Message-ID: <000701bff2ae$e8e7cd40$6e58fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <002501bff29d$403d2700$5b6860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:59:22 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ No, I do not 'want' anything. I am interested > > in clarifying. I gave Wayne a bum steer - culpa mea > > stupidly not stopping to read the law again, but I > > am satisfied that the psyche of a call that is > > conventional according to the partnership's > > understandings (if not psyched) can be regulated > > as a convention. It is not only in Canada that > > many people want to ban psyches; I have a list > > of places - the latest addition is Wales. > No Grattan. You have it wrong. Wales has no wish to ban Psyches. That I have no doubt is official. > Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 12:19:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L2ItT16219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:18:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L2Iit16215 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:18:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.192] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FSTD-000815-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 03:23:23 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01bff2bb$01cd4860$c05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 03:22:36 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > >From: David Stevenson > > Declarer puts outs out a green Stop card, and LHO ... > > > > What I mean is that declarer intended to pull out a Stop card, let us > >say before bidding 3C [as happened twice in Lancaster recently], but he > >actually pulled out a pass card. > +=+ From the back of the box I pulled out a green alert card in Liz's match the other evening! RHO 'saw' that it was blue. +=+ > > > > As soon as he realised, he tried to change it: as his partner had not > >called, he was allowed to change it under L25A. > > > > However, after his pass card, his LHO bid Stop 2NT in one case, and > >Stop 3D in the other. This may be withdrawn under L21B, of course. > > > > But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? > > I assume that LHO is a non-offender. 16C. The withdrawn auction is AI > to LHO and his partner and UI to their opponents. > > -Todd > (wondering what the catch is) > +=+ The thing to look for is what David is about to question - something that may make both sides offenders. One question, I suppose, is what the bidding box regs say about 'making' a call; has LHO bid out of turn? Maybe we need more detail.~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 13:14:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L3EDi16288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:14:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L3Dxt16284 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:14:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.52] (d185fca34.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.52]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09110 for ; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:05:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gah. Meant to send this to the list, but sent it to Todd instead. Sorry, Todd. :-) "Todd Zimnoch" writes: > I assume that LHO is a non-offender. 16C. The withdrawn >auction is AI to LHO and his partner and UI to their opponents. > >-Todd >(wondering what the catch is) Perhaps the catch is in the first paragraph of law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays..." All the calls in question, including the withdrawn ones, were legal, so this clause would seem to apply, making the information from those calls AI to all players. 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/AwUBOXfBBb2UW3au93vOEQLvTgCfUm65doSPWwUwQbwYcQxCUgTrYncAn1BT Da9fxF9wGvZa+eu4ftSTSkCJ =sNCx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 13:19:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L3Ixo16305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L3Int16297 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:18:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.173] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FTPL-0008T2-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:23:28 +0100 Message-ID: <004601bff2c3$663ecf00$c05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <002501bff29d$403d2700$5b6860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:06:50 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ No, I do not 'want' anything. I am interested > > in clarifying. I gave Wayne a bum steer - culpa mea > > stupidly not stopping to read the law again, but I > > am satisfied that the psyche of a call that is > > conventional according to the partnership's > > understandings (if not psyched) can be regulated > > as a convention. It is not only in Canada that > > many people want to ban psyches; I have a list > > of places - the latest addition is Wales. > > I simply do not understand this view at all. > > Bridge is a rich game involving logic, judgement, human error, psychology > and deception. Each of these facits enhances the game. I enjoy each of > these facits of the game. I enjoy the challenge of logically working out a > defensive or declarer play. I enjoy the challenge of judging when to bid > one more and when not to. I enjoy the challenge of avoiding simple human > error even when I know what I should do. I enjoy the challenge of > outwitting the opponent in competitive bidding or in the play with false > cards and deceptive plays. And I enjoy the challenge of of choosing when > to deceive opponents and partner through pyschic calls and to counter the > opponents attempts to deceive me. These deceptions are in some ways extreme > cases of applying psychology and judgement. > > Deceptions, bluff and counter bluff are part of many games and sports and I > cannot imagine those things being banned from any other game. > > In Rugby a player may throw a dummy pass to deceive the opponent. In > Cricket a bowler often attempts to deceive the batsman as to the type of > delivery being bowled. I am sure a similar thing happens in Baseball. In > many team sports the a player feints that he will move one way attempting to > deceive the defender. A similar thing happens in tennis when a player will > line up to play a cross court shot and at the last moment hit the ball down > the line attempting to deceive the opponent. Playing Canasta the other > night I pitched a card that I wanted attempting to deceive the opponents. > There are many more examples. > > Each of these examples enhances the game(s) of which they are a part. > > Having said all of this I acknowledge that there are some problems with > deception peculiar to bridge. Those problems are based on the requirement > to disclose information to your opponents and that you have a partner who > will act on your call. > > It seems to me that the administraters would be better concentrating their > efforts on ensuring reasonable disclosure and > making realistic definitions of concealed (or otherwise) partnership > agreements. That is not some arbitrary rule of one (or any other number) > instance creates an agreement. > > Wayne Burrows > > -- +=+ My personal views are close to the above. But I do not deny the right of society to require by law that where they meet the minority shall conform to the mores of the majority. So I believe bridge law should enable this to happen; I think it wrong for a highly placed cabal to seek to impose its will by laws that deny the democratic exercise of variation in the application of law according to the environmental characteristics of the game in different countries. How else do religious wars commence? Currently we have an example of this in Europe, with at least one NBO of a view, for example, that is in conflict with that in the last paragraph on page 15 of the WBF CoP. I would not wish to deny their right to differ, nor to allow their view to be imposed upon all by way of international law. It was the Kaplan way to change the law when he encountered rulings with which he was not comfortable. The problem with that was that he imposed his own point of view rigidly upon all, instead of confining the law to matters of principle and procedure, leaving the fine tuning and the judgement of application to local opinion and regulation. We have tried to overcome this defect in the CoP, although this point has not sunk in everywhere yet. And judging by the insistence of the current WBFLC on corporate decision-making, (hence the repeated health warnings that anything I say, or anyone else, is personal opinion unless backed up by a formal decision of the appropriate body), the message has reached my colleagues. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 13:19:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L3J1f16306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:19:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L3Ipt16298 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:18:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.173] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FTPN-0008T2-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:23:30 +0100 Message-ID: <004701bff2c3$679621a0$c05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <002501bff29d$403d2700$5b6860cb@laptop> <000701bff2ae$e8e7cd40$6e58fd3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:25:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:52 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > +=+ No, I do not 'want' anything. I am interested > > > in clarifying. I gave Wayne a bum steer - culpa mea > > > stupidly not stopping to read the law again, but I > > > am satisfied that the psyche of a call that is > > > conventional according to the partnership's > > > understandings (if not psyched) can be regulated > > > as a convention. It is not only in Canada that > > > many people want to ban psyches; I have a list > > > of places - the latest addition is Wales. > > > > No Grattan. You have it wrong. Wales has no wish to > ban Psyches. That I have > no doubt is official. > > > Anne > +=+ You misread me. What I said was that many people in Wales want to ban psyches. I think I can quote good authority for this statement. Actually, I believe that in England the same statement would be true, but neither, I believe, does the EBU wish a ban. I have not checked the Orange Book for Level Two. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 17:37:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6L7Wsu16449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:32:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6L7Wkt16445 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:32:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA23206 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:37:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 21 09:37:58 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JS0VWO6W3O001H82@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:37:22 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:35:11 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:37:20 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Wayne Burrows , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B643@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: +=+ ... It is not only in Canada that > > > many people want to ban psyches; I have a list > > > of places - the latest addition is Wales. +=+ > > and Wayne replied: > > I simply do not understand this view (to forbid psyches (ton))at all. > > > > ............ > > It seems to me that the administraters would be better > concentrating their > > efforts on ensuring reasonable disclosure and > > making realistic definitions of concealed (or otherwise) partnership > > agreements. That is not some arbitrary rule of one (or any > other number) > > instance creates an agreement. > > > > Wayne Burrows > > > > -- > +=+ My personal views are close to the above. But I > do not deny the right of society to require by law > that where they meet the minority shall conform to > the mores of the majority. So I believe bridge law > should enable this to happen; I think it wrong for a > highly placed cabal to seek to impose its will by laws > that deny the democratic exercise of variation in the > application of law according to the environmental > characteristics of the game in different countries. > How else do religious wars commence? We have a slight problem here, since we want to be in the same sermon >+=+ Currently > we have an example of this in Europe, with at least > one NBO of a view, for example, that is in conflict 'conflict' seems to strong to me, regardless of the content of the last paragraph of page 15. The CoP is no law, but an aid, meant to help AC. > with that in the last paragraph on page 15 of the > WBF CoP. I would not wish to deny their right to > differ, nor to allow their view to be imposed upon > all by way of international law. > It was the Kaplan way to change the law when > he encountered rulings with which he was not > comfortable. The problem with that was that he > imposed his own point of view rigidly upon all, > instead of confining the law to matters of principle > and procedure, leaving the fine tuning and the > judgement of application to local opinion and > regulation. I am not so sure that judgement of application should be exercised on a local level. To form a stronger opinion I need to know what "judgement of application' exactly means. We also use the word interpretation and agree that it is the WBFLC's job to interpret. > We have tried to overcome this defect > in the CoP, although this point has not sunk in > everywhere yet. And judging by the insistence of > the current WBFLC on corporate decision-making, > (hence the repeated health warnings that anything > I say, or anyone else, is personal opinion unless > backed up by a formal decision of the appropriate > body), the message has reached my colleagues. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It might, but to be sure you better tell me what this message is. In my opinion we did not create the CoP to show the locals that they may judge applications themself but to strive for uniformity in a world not lacking local judgement and interpretation. To go back to Wayne's subject and trying to keep as unauthoritive as possible: I don't estimate it likely that the WBFLC, nor those responsible for updating the CoP, will forbid psyches in the first twentyfive years of this millennium (Why is nobody using this word anymore? Disappointed?) I am happy Wales does not contribute to adopt another view. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 21:56:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LBrX916558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:53:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LBrRt16554 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:53:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA19720 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:58:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:58 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > > > AQxx W N E S > N/N-S Jxx > KJT9 1N P 2D 1# > Ax 3C 2# P 3H X > xxx xx 4C P P X > x Q9xx AP > Ax Q8xxx > KQT9xxx xx 1# Game-forcing Stayman > KJTx 2# Natural per system > Result AKTxx > 4C*-2 xx > NS+500 Jx > I have deleted East's third spade. > East alerted West's 3C and described it as clubs and hearts. > > OK, so how do you adjust? 4H or 4S can score any number of tricks > between nine and twelve. > > You might ask South how he has been damaged. "I don't know," he says > helpfully, "but I would not have bid 4H if 4C comes round to me even if > correctly informed." Firstly the UI. I can't persuade myself that passing 3Hx is an LA (reverse the majors and it is). Secondly you do not say that the explanation was corrected. Assuming it wasn't it seems likely that North got off to a diamond lead - not a wild/gambling action IMO. I can therefore adjust to 4C*-3 (presumably 800). Oops only NS are shown as Vul. Was that 4C*-3, NS+500? Assuming EW are NV then if the explanation was not corrected North may well have tried 4D when offered the retraction of his final pass (obviously looking for the best game) or 4M. Adjust both sides. If the explanation was properly corrected but North was not given the opportunity to retract his final pass then Director error. Result stands EW, Adjust NS. If correction was given and North did not retract his pass then we must decide what South might have done. To be honest he is a bit stitched in trying to find a good bid. I will push against his statement a bit to see if he might, in fact, have considered 4H or risked 4D. I doubt though that I would adjust since it does not seem at all probable (I may just adjust EW) but almost certainly not likely enough to adjust NS. I think for this one you really had to be there. If adjusting I can't see 6S as being found and doubt any other contract will be played for more than 11 tricks. A club will almost certainly be led from either side* and declarer is unlikely to risk running HJ on the first round before drawing the third trump unless actually in 6. I can't see a line to make 6H on a club lead. 11 tricks need declarer to find the right plays in H,D - nothing special there so if I adjust it will be to 650. I reserve the right to be wrong in all my judgement calls - why change from my habits at the table:) Tim West-Meads *I cannot envisage a progression of the auction that does not enable East to be certain his partner has just clubs. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 21 22:13:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LCDMQ16624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:13:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LCDFt16620 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:13:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d406.iae.nl [212.61.5.152]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9759321092 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:17:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <007001bff30d$7ee192a0$98053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200007202116.RAA26371@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:15:31 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > What I mean is that declarer intended to pull out a Stop card, let us > > say before bidding 3C [as happened twice in Lancaster recently], but he > > actually pulled out a pass card. > > > > As soon as he realised, he tried to change it: as his partner had not > > called, he was allowed to change it under L25A. > > > > However, after his pass card, his LHO bid Stop 2NT in one case, and > > Stop 3D in the other. This may be withdrawn under L21B, of course. > > > > But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? > > All :-) we have to do is determine who is an OS and who an NOS. > > It seems clear that dealer's side is an OS, so the information is UI to > them. True, L16C refers to "infraction," and it may be a slight > stretch to call putting out the wrong card an infraction, but even if > not, I think L16C2, which refers only to "withdrawn action," stands on > its own. And no doubt putting out a bid card instead of the intended > stop card violates correct procedure; maybe that makes it an > infraction. Either way, I'm confident L16C2 applies. (Memo to > Grattan: should the next Laws revision change 'infraction' to > 'irregularity'? I'm asking; not suggesting! The correct choice is far > from clear to me.) > > On the story as told, it isn't obvious that second hand has done > anything wrong. But I really wonder how events transpired that he got > out both a stop card and a bid before dealer had corrected his pass or > at least had begun to indicate that a correction was about to be made. > I think the TD needs to investigate. If second hand indeed acted in > proper tempo (and dealer was remarkably slow in reacting to his "green > stop card"), then L16C1 applies, and the information is AI to second > and fourth hands. But if second hand violated proper tempo or > procedure, then L16C2 applies, and the information is UI for both > sides. > -- Did dealer really miss his hold? In the Netherlands the pass cards are in front, wheras a stop card is at the back! Was dealer concentrated or did he change his mind? (In the meantime everybody has already noticed that "declarer " means dealer.) ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 00:11:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LEBLp16713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:11:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LEBEt16709 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:11:15 +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 13Fdag-000GWZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:15:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:15:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: Oh dear. another of my bum rulings. :(( >> >> >> AQxx W N E S >> N/N-S Jxx >> KJT9 1N P 2C 1# >> Ax 3C 2# P 3H X >> xxx xx 4C P P X >> x Q9xx AP >> Ax Q8xxx >> KQT9xxx xx 1# Game-forcing Stayman >> KJTx 2# Natural per system >> Result AKT8x >> 4C*-2 xx >> NS+500 Jx >> >I have deleted East's third spade. > I have corrected for South's H8, and 2C was the actual call. >> East alerted West's 3C and described it as clubs and hearts. the explanation occurred just before the double of 4C. >> >> OK, so how do you adjust? 4H or 4S can score any number of tricks >> between nine and twelve. >> >> You might ask South how he has been damaged. "I don't know," he says >> helpfully, "but I would not have bid 4H if 4C comes round to me even if >> correctly informed." > >Firstly the UI. I can't persuade myself that passing 3Hx is an LA >(reverse the majors and it is). > I considered this matter for a while. DALB is of the view that West is cheating to bid 4C, although at this stage no-one has any idea of the reason for the alert. I finally concluded that, given a penalty double by South, West could determine that partner had *at best* 6H which were badly placed and so I felt that since the UI of the alert hadn't clearly created any new set of LAs that 4C was allowable, and specifically Pass was not a LA. South had no problem with the 4C call. >Secondly you do not say that the explanation was corrected. Assuming it >wasn't it seems likely that North got off to a diamond lead - not a >wild/gambling action IMO. I can therefore adjust to 4C*-3 (presumably >800). Oops only NS are shown as Vul. Was that 4C*-3, NS+500? > Table result was 4Cx-2 300. Irrelevant in practice. The room was about 25% each 620, 650, 680 and a collection of YC specials. >Assuming EW are NV then if the explanation was not corrected North may >well have tried 4D when offered the retraction of his final pass >(obviously looking for the best game) or 4M. Adjust both sides. > I was called after the hand was over. It's not clear to South that he has been damaged (that is, if he has been) until then. >If the explanation was properly corrected but North was not given the >opportunity to retract his final pass then Director error. Result stands >EW, Adjust NS. > This was not the case. see above >If correction was given and North did not retract his pass then we must >decide what South might have done. To be honest he is a bit stitched in >trying to find a good bid. I will push against his statement a bit to see >if he might, in fact, have considered 4H or risked 4D. I doubt though that >I would adjust since it does not seem at all probable (I may just adjust >EW) but almost certainly not likely enough to adjust NS. I think for this >one you really had to be there. > I spent 2 hours thinking about this one and 'phoned or spoke to 4 different people. The EW pair were an inexperienced tournament partnership who have played together once or twice. They generally score poorly in the game. I didn't know much about them. They had agreed to play 2C over 1NT as H and a minor. NS were a practised partnership. >If adjusting I can't see 6S as being found and doubt any other contract >will be played for more than 11 tricks. A club will almost certainly be >led from either side* and declarer is unlikely to risk running HJ on the >first round before drawing the third trump unless actually in 6. >I can't see a line to make 6H on a club lead. 11 tricks need declarer to >find the right plays in H,D - nothing special there so if I adjust it will >be to 650. I'll leave the details of my ruling till we've sucked the juice out of 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 00:55:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LEsic16734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:54:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LEsbt16730 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:54:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from p10s10a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.122.17] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13FeG9-0005qC-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:58:42 +0100 Message-ID: <001101bff323$f87538e0$117a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: <200007202116.RAA26371@cfa183.harvard.edu> <007001bff30d$7ee192a0$98053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:33:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > -- > Did dealer really miss his hold? In the Netherlands the pass cards are in > front, wheras a stop card is at the back! Was dealer concentrated or did he > change his mind? > +=+ And yet in the box I was using the other evening a previous user had put a green one away at the back. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 00:55:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LEtNf16746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:55:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LEtGt16742 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:55:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from p10s10a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.122.17] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13FeGJ-0005qC-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:58:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001201bff323$fe512940$117a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B643@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:55:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Wayne Burrows ; Bridge Laws Sent: 21 July 2000 08:37 Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > -- > > +=+ My personal views are close to the above. But I > > do not deny the right of society to require by law > > that where they meet the minority shall conform to > > the mores of the majority. So I believe bridge law > > should enable this to happen; I think it wrong for a > > highly placed cabal to seek to impose its will by laws > > that deny the democratic exercise of variation in the > > application of law according to the environmental > > characteristics of the game in different countries. > > How else do religious wars commence? > > We have a slight problem here, since we want to be > in the same sermon > +=+ Oh, I do not think we want to share one religion; we want to learn how to live together in peace and this involves each tolerating the customs and beliefs of the other. So we have to make laws that provide for that tolerance so that we may all live within them. Edgar tried to impose his own view of the game on all; this is no longer how we are doing it. +=+ > > > >+=+ Currently > > we have an example of this in Europe, with at least > > one NBO of a view, for example, that is in conflict > > 'conflict' seems to strong to me, regardless of the content of the last > paragraph of page 15. The CoP is no law, but an aid, meant to help AC. > +=+ The CoP is the WBF's recommendation to its member NBOs. It does not impose. Nor do I believe it would be right to attempt to impose via the laws. It has been agreed that we would seek to persuade, not to use the iron fist. We need clear divisions between the 'principle' enunciated in the law and the implementation at local level. Exactly as we have done with 'logical alternative', stating the principle and allowing latitude in the fine tuning and evaluation of the judgement applied. One can be in conflict with a recommendation as much as with a law.+=+ > > > with that in the last paragraph on page 15 of the > > WBF CoP. I would not wish to deny their right to > > differ, nor to allow their view to be imposed upon > > all by way of international law. > > It was the Kaplan way to change the law when > > he encountered rulings with which he was not > > comfortable. The problem with that was that he > > imposed his own point of view rigidly upon all, > > instead of confining the law to matters of principle > > and procedure, leaving the fine tuning and the > > judgement of application to local opinion and > > regulation. > > I am not so sure that judgement of application should be exercised on a > local level. To form a stronger opinion I need to know what "judgement of > application' exactly means. We also use the word interpretation and agree > that it is the WBFLC's job to interpret. > +=+ To interpret the meaning of the text of the laws. Using that interpretation it is the prerogative of the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge its application to cases. If we were to believe that the Laws Committee ought to try to provide rigid guidelines for these bridge judgements we would first need to set them in stone in the text of the laws, and secondly recognize that we were sowing the seeds of confrontation. Harmony is a condition into which the world may be led but cannot be driven with whips.+=+ > > > We have tried to overcome this defect > > in the CoP, although this point has not sunk in > > everywhere yet. And judging by the insistence of > > the current WBFLC on corporate decision-making, > > (hence the repeated health warnings that anything > > I say, or anyone else, is personal opinion unless > > backed up by a formal decision of the appropriate > > body), the message has reached my colleagues. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It might, but to be sure you better tell me what this message is > +=+ The message is clear enough: the Committee has said that only the decisions which it makes as a body are authoritative. What I say, you say, Kojak says, or any other member of the committee says, does not constitute a defining statement. It is opinion, may even be advice, but that is as far as it goes.The committee will decide as a group the way it will go, and subjects must be taken to the committee at its meetings for decision. The Kaplan technique has had its day. +=+ >. > In my opinion we did not create the CoP to show the locals that they may > judge applications themself but to strive for uniformity in a world not > lacking local judgement and interpretation. > +=+ I agree. But not to force feed. The keynote is persuasion.+=+ > > To go back to Wayne's subject and trying to keep as unauthoritive as > possible: I don't estimate it likely that the WBFLC, nor those responsible > for updating the CoP, will forbid psyches in the first twentyfive years of > this millennium (Why is nobody using this word anymore? Disappointed?) > I am happy Wales does not contribute to adopt another view. > +=+ Agreed. But my statement that many of the Welsh players are of this view is unassailable. It is a commonly held view amongst the unassuming classes of player, who are perhaps the majority, in some parts of the world at least. I seem to have heard even one or two eminent players come close to saying the same thing. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 01:27:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LFRBx16768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LFR5t16764 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:27:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16606; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:28:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:16:55 PDT." Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:28:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > List of cats Since he's been mentioned a couple times recently on BLML, perhaps Schroedinger's cat should be added to the list. Or perhaps not. Or perhaps the cat should be simultaneously both on and not on the list. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 01:41:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LFfoo16785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:41:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LFfit16781 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16832; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:42:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200007211542.IAA16832@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:32:39 PDT." <200007202132.RAA26396@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:42:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Gordon Bower > > I don't believe *at the time he made the 1S call*, offender was attempting > > to penalize the as-yet-unmentioned diamonds, there is no redress. > > Right. Seems obvious. How could a player looking at a goodish 5-5 > (at least enough to open) possibly think it would make sense to bar > partner? > > > This > > would, of course, entage the non-offending opener, and I would have to > > agree it doesn't seem fair. > > I don't see why it seems unfair or why a player should be "entaged" or > even angry. Annoyed or irritated, sure; it's always bad luck when the > opponents do something silly that happens to work. But it isn't rare > or unfair. Most of us have learned to laugh when it happens. We've > all had lots of practice, alas. Certainly, it's bad luck if someone does something silly that happens to work out. This is also the case after irregularities. If I open 1NT when it's my partner's turn, barring my partner for the entire auction, and I decide to try opening 3NT, maybe it will be a deficient-HCP contract that we never would have bid but that happens to make. That's bad luck. This situation seems somewhat different, though. The irregularity has put the offender in a position to gain advantage by giving him a call (i.e. a penalty double) that he would not have had if the irregularity had not occurred. Even if the contract had not been played there doubled, the offender still has gotten the opportunity to tell his partner that he has good diamonds, which may be useful (and apparently authorized) information on defense. If I were the NO in this situation, I'd feel that since the opponents' irregularity opened a door for them that would have been shut otherwise, I would not be happy if the Laws let them do this, and I'd feel there was something wrong with the Laws. This is a bigger problem than just bad luck. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 01:54:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LFsT816806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:54:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LFsMt16802 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:54:23 +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 LAA05081 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA03338 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:59:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007211559.LAA03338@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Fri Jul 21 11:47:12 2000 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > From: Adam Beneschan > This situation seems somewhat different, though. The irregularity has > put the offender in a position to gain advantage by giving him a call > (i.e. a penalty double) that he would not have had if the irregularity > had not occurred. ... If I were the NO in this > situation, I'd feel that since the opponents' irregularity opened a > door for them that would have been shut otherwise, Sorry, Adam, but I just don't see it. Remember, the laws take away the takeout double, which is what the OS will want most of the time. In the rare case where the penalty double is wanted, the OS benefit. And even then, if they "could have known," the benefit is taken away. There are lots of similar situations, none of which is very common at the table. If you really want to take away all benefit from the infraction, maybe the Laws should bar both members of the OS from the bidding. But then some OS would stay out of a non-making slam, and the NOS would complain about that. The only real "solution" is to stop play and give the NOS a top and the OS a bottom. Do you think people would like that? If not, they have to recognize that if play continues, there must be some chance for the OS to do well. Otherwise, continuing play would be pointless. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 02:39:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LGcoR16834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 02:38:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LGcht16830 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 02:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP261.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.23]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11645; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200007211142060800.00FABBDE@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:42:06 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Since he's been mentioned a couple times recently on BLML, perhaps >Schroedinger's cat should be added to the list. Or perhaps not. Or >perhaps the cat should be simultaneously both on and not on the list. Perhaps we could say that there's a 50-50 chance Schroedinger's cat will be on the list next time it comes out. Would that do? Best regards, Brian Baresch, Lawrence, Kansas baresch@earthlink.net Editing, writing, proofreading "In a mass-market economy, a revolutionary song is any song you choose to sing yourself." -- Utah Phillips -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 03:58:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LHw2316905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 03:58:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LHvvt16901 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 03:57:57 +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 NNY00BC9; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:02:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200007211142060800.00FABBDE@mail.earthlink.net> References: <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:04:41 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Since he's been mentioned a couple times recently on BLML, perhaps >>Schroedinger's cat should be added to the list. Or perhaps not. Or >>perhaps the cat should be simultaneously both on and not on the list. > >Perhaps we could say that there's a 50-50 chance Schroedinger's cat will be >on the list next time it comes out. Would that do? > >Best regards, > >Brian Baresch, Lawrence, Kansas >baresch@earthlink.net >Editing, writing, proofreading > >"In a mass-market economy, a revolutionary song is any song you choose to >sing yourself." -- Utah Phillips > >-- How about random deletion of keystrokes: Sroig's c? Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 04:01:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LI1Ol16921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:01:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f49.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LI1Jt16917 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:01:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:05:53 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.18 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:05:53 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2000 18:05:53.0427 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F56BE30:01BFF33E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Brian Baresch" > >Since he's been mentioned a couple times recently on BLML, perhaps > >Schroedinger's cat should be added to the list. Or perhaps not. Or > >perhaps the cat should be simultaneously both on and not on the list. > >Perhaps we could say that there's a 50-50 chance Schroedinger's cat will be >on the list next time it comes out. Would that do? I'd vote placing, "Schroedinger's cat is not on this list," somewhere in the middle of the list. You could argue for days about the finer points of grammar and logic without reaching a conclusion as to whether or not Schroedinger's cat is or is not on the list. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 04:13:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LIDUX16938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:13:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LIDOt16934 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:13:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-6 [128.224.195.35]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id LAA07687 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Cats! Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:18:56 -0700 Message-ID: <004d01bff359$47b2c3c0$23c3e080@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 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >Perhaps we could say that there's a 50-50 chance > Schroedinger's cat will be > >on the list next time it comes out. Would that do? This is deterministic. Big no-no > >Best regards, > > > >Brian Baresch, Lawrence, Kansas > >baresch@earthlink.net > >Editing, writing, proofreading -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOXi+QCGkJ7YU62vZEQI3ZgCg9KENKI6WTqcPMcYjvPwGIofb6V0An2Mo nV1ATPRGQa9pXmNYoMXw6Fn3 =HA8i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 04:25:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LINat16954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:23:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LINUt16950 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 04:23:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LIS8f29650; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:28:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200007211542.IAA16832@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:32:39 PDT." <200007202132.RAA26396@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:25:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities Cc: adam@irvine.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:42 AM -0700 7/21/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: [a player opens 1S out of turn, then doubles RHO's weak 2D opening with 5-5 in spades and diamonds] >Certainly, it's bad luck if someone does something silly that happens >to work out. This is also the case after irregularities. If I open >1NT when it's my partner's turn, barring my partner for the entire >auction, and I decide to try opening 3NT, maybe it will be a >deficient-HCP contract that we never would have bid but that happens >to make. That's bad luck. > >This situation seems somewhat different, though. The irregularity has >put the offender in a position to gain advantage by giving him a call >(i.e. a penalty double) that he would not have had if the irregularity >had not occurred. Even if the contract had not been played there >doubled, the offender still has gotten the opportunity to tell his >partner that he has good diamonds, which may be useful (and apparently >authorized) information on defense. However, the call he made would have otherwise been legal; it is a matter of his own agreements that the double was not penalty. If the offender had been playing penalty doubles of preempts, a legal agreement, then there would be no question of damage. And the offender could not have known, *before* the 2D bid, that barring partner would be in his interest. Suppose that the opening had been 1H instead (much more likely); then barring partner would deprive the offender of the 2H Michaels cue-bid. This is the reason for the "could have known" rule. Suppose that after making a forcing 1NT response to 1S, the bidder drops the CT on the table. Partner is barred, and declarer now plays 1NT, a contract which would have otherwise been impossible for this pair to reach. It turns out to be the best contract. The result should normally stand, as the 1NT bidder could not have known that barring an unlimited partner would be in his interest. Has anyone ever used the "could have known" rule as a director? I had one opponent ask for such a ruling against me, when partner barred me with an insufficient bid on a deal which turned out to be a misfit and played in a making part-score; the director ruled that I could not have known that the deal was a misfit. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 05:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LJCrI16987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:12:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LJCkt16983 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:12:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.134] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FiIW-0003qQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:17:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bff348$aa35a320$865908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:55:57 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 4:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > Perhaps the catch is in the first paragraph of law 16: "Players are > authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls and or plays..." All the calls in question, including the > withdrawn ones, were legal, so this clause would seem to apply, > making the information from those calls AI to all players. > +=+ Hmmm No infraction, you say? Seems not. But does it constitute an irregularity? (72B1). Do we feel the call changer should be able to use information received because of his action? What do we want the law to say? On the other tack I would like to know what exactly the player did with that green card, was it placed in the 'played' position? Has LHO bid prematurely? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 05:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LJCaB16981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:12:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LJCUt16977 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:12:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-130.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.130]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E2018387D4; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:16:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004f01bff347$6ac53580$82b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:10:39 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > -- >> > +=+ My personal views are close to the above. But I >> > do not deny the right of society to require by law >> > that where they meet the minority shall conform to >> > the mores of the majority. So I believe bridge law >> > should enable this to happen; I think it wrong for a >> > highly placed cabal to seek to impose its will by laws >> > that deny the democratic exercise of variation in the >> > application of law according to the environmental >> > characteristics of the game in different countries. >> > How else do religious wars commence? >> >> We have a slight problem here, since we want to be >> in the same sermon >> >+=+ Oh, I do not think we want to share >one religion; we want to learn how to >live together in peace and this involves >each tolerating the customs and beliefs >of the other. So we have to make laws >that provide for that tolerance so that we >may all live within them. Edgar tried to >impose his own view of the game on all; >this is no longer how we are doing it. +=+ I assume that I can be sure you do not want to suggest any relation between your 'cabal' and Edgar Kaplan or even me. Just an unlucky combination on a 'sheet of paper'. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 06:22:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LKKY217049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:20:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LKKOt17036 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-43.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.43]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12343 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:25:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39781E0A.F19671DE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:55:22 +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: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > As to your H1H ... discussion is boring. Do you > know of any of the world's bridge authorities > that would agree with a contention that there > is no partnership understanding involved? Well, as I've stated many times before, there is, or could be, partnership knowledge. My partners usually don't have a clue but that's beside the point. I've stated many times before that this knowledge must be disclosed. Call it experience or understanding, I don't care. I will bow over to the WBFLC who have decided that it can be partnership understanding. OK, fine by me. Where I refuse to cross the next line, however, is in the immediate assumption that if it is partnership understanding, it must be a banned system. I'm not even saying that under some regulations, interpreted literally, it is not a banned system. If that is the case, those regulations must be altered, because they run into serious trouble, as I have shown. I believe that the WBF system policy does not make the H1H a yellow system. Why am I saying that ? Because all I have done is reveal my psyching tendencies. All players have psyching tendencies, and many player's partners are better aware of these than are mine. I believe that all these players fall short of their obligations regarding disclosure. The mere fact of the existence of tendencies cannot mean that the psyche can be banned. Or else you have a once-a-lifetime-psyching rule. Is that clear ? Have you understood the problem ? Where do we go for a solution ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 06:22:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LKKaE17050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:20:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LKKRt17041 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:20:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-43.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.43]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12347 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39781E85.E93FEA9D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:57:25 +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: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <002501bff29d$403d2700$5b6860cb@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > It seems to me that the administraters would be better concentrating their > efforts on ensuring reasonable disclosure and > making realistic definitions of concealed (or otherwise) partnership > agreements. That is not some arbitrary rule of one (or any other number) > instance creates an agreement. > hear hear !! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 06:22:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LKKTf17045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:20:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LKKLt17034 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:20:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-18-43.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.18.43]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12336 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:24:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39781AF9.D32BA5BD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:42:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try References: <20000720222827.45387.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Todd, but you are missing a few points. I'll snip extensively. Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > But the decision to ban that bid is not based on whether or not it is a > psych. Some bids may be both destructive and psyches, but the ability to > cope is a problem related to destructive bids and not psyches. > If it is a psyche, it cannot be banned. So your sentence lacks any validity. > > > >When we find some other criterium that makes the psyche > >illegal. What criterium ? > > Any other criterium. If the psych is illegal, it remains that way > whether or not there's a systemic catch. > My question was, what other criterium ? Any is not an answer. We have tried for weeks now to find a criterium and we have failed. You answer lacks any validity. > >problems to cope. At the one level these problems are more > >easily solved. > > As I said before, I don't believe this is germane to the psyching > problem. Destructive bids will be banned for the reason that they are > destructive. Then you needn't even bother thinking whether or not it was a > psych. It's already banned. > Destructive bids are NOT banned because they are destructive, or the 4Sp opening should be banned. Destructive bids are banned because while being destructive, the partnership have developed ways to solve their own problems. The rest of your sentence says nothing. Sorry. > > > >Aha. This is a circular reasoning, Todd. > > > >The information that my partner gets fro his experience with > >me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. > > Quote please? > Well, L16 perhaps ? > >If you call it UI because it is illegal, and you call it > >illegal because it is UI, you have stated nothing. > >With a rule like this, you are immediately into > >once-a-lifetime territory. This last rule of yours cannot > >be correct. > > I fail to see the loop. The entire point of banning psyches at the > moment is that there develops a concealed partnership understanding. Well, no psyche can ever be banned. But that was not the point. You were talking about UI. CPU's are not UI. > 75B > states that the implicit agreement must be disclosed. Your particular > problem is that should you disclose H1H with its meaning, it's still banned > for being a too-weak, two-way opener. > Exactly, the lethal combination. You are banning my opening simply because I tell everyone that I have done the same psyche before. That cannot be right. There must be some other reason why my bid is banned. Enough said. > >Well, a 4Sp opener is not yet banned. Yet extremely > >difficult to cope with. It must be the ratio between > >opponents coping / partner coping=risk that determines > >whether a system is regulated. > > It's simultaneously a constructive bid. > So is a multi-2-diamond. You are looking for a contract that won't go down too many tricks, and meanwhile trying to keep your opponents from their optimum contract. No difference. > > > >I believe that if it IS illegal, and I don't think it is, it > >is because the regulations are badly written or wrongly > >interpreted. > > I just think that they're unfavorable. > Different word for the same argument. > >(*) I am deliberately using Todd's words here "illegal > >psyche". The psyche itself can never be illegal. The > >psyche can be systemic, and the system illegal. I hope that > >Todd agrees with me that this is what he means with illegal > >psyche. > > No, I don't agree. If my convention card says that 1C is a strong > artificial bid, then I cannot psych a 1C opening (say, holding long diamonds > hoping partner bids 1D in response). The system is legal, the psych is not > systemic, yet it's still an illegal psych. At least this is the case in the > ACBL, IIRC. I still wonder about the exact reasoning behing this one, but I > think it's reasonable. Yes it is, but that is not the problem with the H1H. There is no regulation specifically banning the psyching of a natural call. There is a specific regulation banning the psyching of a forcing strong call. > And I wonder a little bit about 75B/fielding psyches. It seems to > imply that any fielded psych, regardless of how the psych is exposed, is > illegal. > I could comment, but it would carry us off on a tangent. > -Todd > Sorry Todd, if I seemed a little personal and harsh in this post. I have great respect for your postings, but there were a few too many errors in this one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 06:24:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LKMlQ17074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:22:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LKMdt17070 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:22:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4p9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.41]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02121 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401bff352$cf8aa120$2913f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:32:36 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >To go back to Wayne's subject and trying to keep as unauthoritive as >possible: I don't estimate it likely that the WBFLC, nor those responsible >for updating the CoP, will forbid psyches in the first twentyfive years of >this millennium (Why is nobody using this word anymore? Disappointed?) I am >happy Wales does not contribute to adopt another view. > > >ton Because the new Millenium does not start for another 5 months and some odd days? :-)) Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 07:52:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LLpan17114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:51:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f226.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LLpUt17110 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:51:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:56:03 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.22 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:56:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2000 21:56:03.0583 (UTC) FILETIME=[76D550F0:01BFF35E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael > > But the decision to ban that bid is not based on whether > > or not it is a psych. Some bids may be both destructive > > and psyches, but the ability to cope is a problem related > > to destructive bids and not psyches. > >If it is a psyche, it cannot be banned. This is not true. There are a great many banned psyches. As far as destructiveness, open 4S with a spade void. How often will you be allowed to get away with that? > > As I said before, I don't believe this is germane to the > > psyching problem. Destructive bids will be banned for the > > reason that they are destructive. Then you needn't even > > bother thinking whether or not it was a psych. It's > > already banned. > >Destructive bids are NOT banned because they are >destructive, or the 4Sp opening should be banned. A 4S opening on a long spade suit is not (purely) destructive. It's pre-emptive. > > >The information that my partner gets fro his experience with > > >me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. > > > > Quote please? > >Well, L16 perhaps ? It's not there. > > I fail to see the loop. The entire point of banning psyches > > at the moment is that there develops a concealed partnership > > understanding. > >Well, no psyche can ever be banned. You must convince yourself that this is not true. >But that was not the point. >You were talking about UI. >CPU's are not UI. Then CPU's are AI? When you open 1H in the third seat, your partner cannot bid as if that's weak by either laws 16A and 40B. Nothing in L16 says that a CPU cannot be considered extraneous information from partner and thus UI. It is extraneous information. > > 75B states that the implicit agreement must be disclosed. > > Your particular problem is that should you disclose H1H > > with its meaning, it's still banned > > for being a too-weak, two-way opener. > >Exactly, the lethal combination. You are banning my opening >simply because I tell everyone that I have done the same >psyche before. >That cannot be right. There must be some other reason why >my bid is banned. Enough said. If H1H is a psych, you develop a CPU. If H1H is disclosed and not a psych, you are playing an illegal system. Telling everyone only brings the attention to yourself. The action would still be illegal if you told no one. You'd just have to wait longer until they figure it out for themselves. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 08:00:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LM03V17135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:00:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LLxst17123 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:59:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.249] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FkuF-0006Ks-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:04:31 +0100 Message-ID: <004701bff360$028f02c0$095608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <39781E0A.F19671DE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:45:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > As to your H1H ... discussion is boring. Do you > > know of any of the world's bridge authorities > > that would agree with a contention that there > > is no partnership understanding involved? > > Well, as I've stated many times before, there is, or could > be, partnership knowledge. My partners usually don't have a > clue but that's beside the point. > > I've stated many times before that this knowledge must be > disclosed. Call it experience or understanding, I don't > care. > > I will bow over to the WBFLC who have decided that it can be > partnership understanding. OK, fine by me. > > Where I refuse to cross the next line, however, is in the > immediate assumption that if it is partnership > understanding, it must be a banned system. > +=+ Now, there is the point. When an understanding is announced it is open to the regulating body to regulate it. That can be a ban, but in the case of the WBF it is not a total ban - there are conditions of use, including prohibition of certain classes of action in certain competitions, and it is open for each SO to allow the actions if it chooses. In many NBOs psyches based upon partnership understandings are not allowed. What the law forbids is the psyche based upon a concealed PU. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 08:00:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6LM05P17136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 08:00:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6LLxtt17124 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 07:59:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.249] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13FkuG-0006Ks-00; Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:04:33 +0100 Message-ID: <004801bff360$03926900$095608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <002501bff29d$403d2700$5b6860cb@laptop> <39781E85.E93FEA9D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 23:05:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > > > It seems to me that the administraters would be better concentrating their > > efforts on ensuring reasonable disclosure and > > making realistic definitions of concealed (or otherwise) partnership > > agreements. That is not some arbitrary rule of one (or any other number) > > instance creates an agreement. > > > > hear hear !! > +=+ There is a misunderstanding perpetuated in this. There is no 'rule' The CoP has expressed a view as to what constitutes a partnership understanding, namely that "the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic". Since it is the Director and the AC that must judge whether there is an awareness of a significant level, the CoP goes on to consider the kinds of evidence that may lead the Director/AC to answer 'yes'. It is for them to consider and judge in each instance. There is no hard and fast 'rule'. The possibility that one instance may be viewed as creating an understanding should require a very high hurdle of credibility to be surmounted, but that there are cases where a recent psyche remains vividly in mind and does not fade is undeniable. In such a case the Director must have the discretion to make a finding. The CoP has omitted one kind of circumstantial but strong evidence, post facto collusive, abnormal action by the partner of a kind that restricts the likelihood of damage - i.e. "fielding". This, I think, needs to be added in. Some people believe this is the only kind of evidence that can exist, but it is self-evidently not so because the offence occurs before there is any fielding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 10:13:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6M0CdF17195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:12:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6M0CXt17191 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:12:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Fmyb-0000ST-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:17:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:15:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200007211528.IAA16606@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >> List of cats > >Since he's been mentioned a couple times recently on BLML, perhaps >Schroedinger's cat should be added to the list. Or perhaps not. Or >perhaps the cat should be simultaneously both on and not on the list. > > -- Adam Perhaps he should not be there when we observe him, but should be there when we don't. -- 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 14:01:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6M41FQ17279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:01:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6M410t17269 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-97.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-97.interpacket.net [216.252.211.97]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id fa146177 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:19:27 +1000 Message-ID: <00d001bff390$dd2e4320$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "BLML" References: <20000717063257.26753.qmail@hotmail.com> <000701bff03a$1cfbd9e0$8d08ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 09:42:35 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What was their system? If 1NT was systemically 16-18 which you imply then it was alertable (in NZ - nowhere else in the world - it's the range I learnt in my first lesson - what a silly rule!). If systemically it was in the 11-15 range, then it is a psyche and the only player with UI is North. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" Sent: 18 July 2000 7:58 Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or not UI > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Albert" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 7:32 PM > Subject: [BLML] UI or not UI > > > > A very simple case which almost happened at the recent NZ nationals: > > > > N E S W > > P P P 1NT > > P P P > > > > Relevant facts: > > > > 1N in fourth seat was 16-18, not alerted (as it should have been -- > opening > > 1NT bids whose range is not wholly contained in 11-15 are aleratble in New > > Zealand.) > > > > The final pass was slow (South was thinking of balancing over a weak NT.) > > > > To whom (if anyone) is the information available from South's slow pass > > authorised? > > > As East did not raise, I assume he did not have sufficient to do so opposite > 16-18. Imagine East with 6 points and West with 17. This leaves 17 > outstanding. South could think of balancing with 10 - 11 points,(and with 11 > and a 5 carder he would surely have opened, and the average gives him 9 > anyway so it is a close call as to whether the information he has given dec > is much help anyway. > As soon as dummy is exposed both defenders have a count of the hands. > That said I believe the information is authorised to declarer and not to his > partner. > However N/S have been given MI and if this has damaged them, by giving S > cause to think when he had no such cause, I could consider adjusting and > would do so if the two way finesse involved a Queen after all other points > were exposed. > Anne > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 14:01:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6M41NI17284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:01:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6M41Ct17275 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-97.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-97.interpacket.net [216.252.211.97]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ia146180 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:19:34 +1000 Message-ID: <00d301bff390$e09710a0$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: <20000720222827.45387.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:38:23 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "And I wonder a little bit about 75B/fielding psyches. It seems to imply that any fielded psych, regardless of how the psych is exposed, is illegal." Abd that is wrong. If partner makes some bid and I bid on in all honesty and then partner does something strange, like pass a forcing call", which tells me that his initial action was possibly a psyche, I will alert the "pass or whatever else was weird" and explain that partner has done something strange - I don't know what, but it is strange. If that is fielding a psyche, and I am prohibited from being honest, then this game has problems! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: 21 July 2000 8:28 Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try > >From: Herman De Wael > > > You seem to imply that because your opponents are able to cope with > >the > > > H1H that it is more suitable to being allowed than other sorts of > >psyches. > > > >Yes it is. As you yourself point out below. One reason for > >banning a particular bid is because opponents cannot cope. > >So them being able to cope should make them "more allowable" > >(I'm not saying allowed). > > But the decision to ban that bid is not based on whether or not it is a > psych. Some bids may be both destructive and psyches, but the ability to > cope is a problem related to destructive bids and not psyches. > > > > 2) the absence of a systemic catch is not sufficient to allow a psych. > > > >When we find some other criterium that makes the psyche > >illegal. What criterium ? > > Any other criterium. If the psych is illegal, it remains that way > whether or not there's a systemic catch. > > > > 3) systemic responses to the psyched bid can be used to rule a psych > > > illegal, but are never evidence that a psych is legal. > > > >Define systemic responses in some good manner and I would > >say that they would always make the psyche illegal. (*) > > Hmmm, my phrasing was perhaps a bit too subtle. If my systemic > responses to 1H are 1S = 4+ spades, some hcp, 1NT = 5-12HCP, 2C = .... We > may find that if I psych 1H, the responses may provide a catch. It's a > vaguer statement of 1+2 previously. > > > > 4) ability or inability to cope should not be used to decide whether or > >not > > > a psych is legal. > > > >I believe it is inherent in the definition of banned (or > >restricted systems). There are different rules at the one > >level and at the two and three level. This must be because > >at either level, the risk/problem ratio is different. When > >you open at the three level, you yourself are having > >problems to cope. At the one level these problems are more > >easily solved. > > As I said before, I don't believe this is germane to the psyching > problem. Destructive bids will be banned for the reason that they are > destructive. Then you needn't even bother thinking whether or not it was a > psych. It's already banned. > > > > 5) the risk factor for a bad score should not be used to decide whether > >or > > > not a psych is legal. > > > >Perhaps not. But I don't consider a totally risk-free bid a > >psyche. > > A risk-free bid may fall under the idea of systemic catch. I still > want to take-out double holding 5440 yarboroughs. I'll pass for the rest of > the auction and it's risk-free. It's still a psych. It's a gross > misstatement of my hand. > > > > 6) the success rate of a psych should not be used to decide whether or > >not a > > > psych is legal. > > > >Of course not. I believe that the zero-point opening in > >third is very successful. Pity it never turns up ! > > > > > 7) any bid that when revealed as a psych gives a player's partner UI, > >should > > > be illegal. > > > >Aha. This is a circular reasoning, Todd. > > > >The information that my partner gets fro his experience with > >me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. > > Quote please? > > >If you call it UI because it is illegal, and you call it > >illegal because it is UI, you have stated nothing. > >With a rule like this, you are immediately into > >once-a-lifetime territory. This last rule of yours cannot > >be correct. > > I fail to see the loop. The entire point of banning psyches at the > moment is that there develops a concealed partnership understanding. 75B > states that the implicit agreement must be disclosed. Your particular > problem is that should you disclose H1H with its meaning, it's still banned > for being a too-weak, two-way opener. > > >Well, a 4Sp opener is not yet banned. Yet extremely > >difficult to cope with. It must be the ratio between > >opponents coping / partner coping=risk that determines > >whether a system is regulated. > > It's simultaneously a constructive bid. > > > > Current rules of the game don't allow that. I believe that H1H is > > > currently illegal. I'm still undecided whether or not it should be. I > > > think that if it were kosher that it should be considered a two-way bid > >and > > > not a psyche. > > > >I believe that if it IS illegal, and I don't think it is, it > >is because the regulations are badly written or wrongly > >interpreted. > > I just think that they're unfavorable. > > >(*) I am deliberately using Todd's words here "illegal > >psyche". The psyche itself can never be illegal. The > >psyche can be systemic, and the system illegal. I hope that > >Todd agrees with me that this is what he means with illegal > >psyche. > > No, I don't agree. If my convention card says that 1C is a strong > artificial bid, then I cannot psych a 1C opening (say, holding long diamonds > hoping partner bids 1D in response). The system is legal, the psych is not > systemic, yet it's still an illegal psych. At least this is the case in the > ACBL, IIRC. I still wonder about the exact reasoning behing this one, but I > think it's reasonable. > And I wonder a little bit about 75B/fielding psyches. It seems to > imply that any fielded psych, regardless of how the psych is exposed, is > illegal. > > -Todd > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 14:01:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6M41I117280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:01:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6M415t17270 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:01:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-97.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-97.interpacket.net [216.252.211.97]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ha146179 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:19:31 +1000 Message-ID: <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:29:10 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Please, please, please stop them Grattan! (banning psyches or else we will NEVER be able to open a 3 card 1D or strong 1C or multi-2 because they WILL all eventually be regarded as psyches by the purists and we will be reduced to Chess!) For Bridge's sake. I have NO problem with regulations which prohibit "agreements", which allow partner to open a hand and us to respond to discover what they have, that would be banned as a HUM at the level of the tournament. However in open competition, where HUM are allowed, I again have no problem with "agreements" where there is full disclosure: 1S (Alert) (Ask) "Either 11-20 5 Spades OR 0-5, 7 Clubs, void Spades)!" But I do have a problem with: 1S:2C:Pass (Ask) "Oh, er, um, he has clubs....." "Why didn't you alert 1S?" "Well, it's natural". "Why did he pass 2C?" "Well he now has clubs and not spades..." DIRECTOR!!!!! etc. This is an agreement that is undisclosed, not a psyche. This we have to stop - and it happens much too often. (Pardon me if I'm stating the bleeding obvious but I'm new at this director game - and have only been playing semi-seriously for 7 years..) regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: 21 July 2000 6:41 Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > 'Elasticity' > "There was things that he stretched, > but mainly he told the truth." > ('The adventures of Huckleberry Finn') > ================================= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 12:08 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > All this for what exactly ? > > > > Grattan wants to call psyches conventions. > > A mini no-trump cannot have conventions over it in the ACBL. > > Some people in Canada want to be able to ban psyches. > > And so on. > > > +=+ No, I do not 'want' anything. I am interested > in clarifying. I gave Wayne a bum steer - culpa mea > stupidly not stopping to read the law again, but I > am satisfied that the psyche of a call that is > conventional according to the partnership's > understandings (if not psyched) can be regulated > as a convention. It is not only in Canada that > many people want to ban psyches; I have a list > of places - the latest addition is Wales. > For the General Review of the laws 2002-2005 > one proposition that will be on the table will be > to remove the word 'convention' from the law > book and refer to 'partnership understanding' > instead. The world is ready for this, in the sense > that we already have sanctions in areas that > neither involve conventions nor initial actions on > hands a King or more below average strength, > sanctions that are legitimately imposed through > regulation. If the world is determined to do it > the laws committee would look foolish (and > rather flat)if it were to lie down in front of the > steamroller. > As to your H1H ... discussion is boring. Do you > know of any of the world's bridge authorities > that would agree with a contention that there > is no partnership understanding involved? - any > authority, that is, except maybe Belgium, where > you say you make the law anyway. (I am not > clear whether you are allowed to get away with > it in England, but if so surely it cannot be for > long.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 22 20:10:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6MA9HD17415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 20:09:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6MA9Ct17411 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 20:09:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.236]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000722101514.NBBU1065.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:15:14 +1200 Message-ID: <002f01bff3c5$420b31c0$ec6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:11:11 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Noel & Pamela" > Please, please, please stop them Grattan! (banning psyches or else we will > NEVER be able to open a 3 card 1D or strong 1C or multi-2 because they WILL > all eventually be regarded as psyches by the purists and we will be reduced > to Chess!) > > For Bridge's sake. I'm not sure that they will all be regarded as psychs but I do agree we will be reduced to a more deterministic game. > > I have NO problem with regulations which prohibit "agreements", which allow > partner to open a hand and us to respond to discover what they have, that > would be banned as a HUM at the level of the tournament. However in open > competition, where HUM are allowed, I again have no problem with > "agreements" where there is full disclosure: > > 1S (Alert) (Ask) > > "Either 11-20 5 Spades OR 0-5, 7 Clubs, void Spades)!" > > But I do have a problem with: > > 1S:2C:Pass (Ask) > > "Oh, er, um, he has clubs....." > > "Why didn't you alert 1S?" > > "Well, it's natural". > > "Why did he pass 2C?" > > "Well he now has clubs and not spades..." > > DIRECTOR!!!!! > > etc. > > This is an agreement that is undisclosed, not a psyche. This we have to > stop - and it happens much too often. I don't believe this is necessarily true. If I pass my partner's otherwise forcing response to my 1S opening then everyone at the table can work out that I have psyched (or misbid - I guess). I can't see that this is sufficient evidence to determine that we have a partnership agreement to open 1S without spades, even if this has happened before. > > (Pardon me if I'm stating the bleeding obvious but I'm new at this director > game - and have only been playing semi-seriously for 7 years..) > > regards, > Noel &/or Pamela Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 04:50:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6MIm9j17621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:48:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6MIm2t17617 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:48:03 +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 OAA14515 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA14756 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:52:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > There is no 'rule' The CoP has expressed a view as to > what constitutes a partnership understanding, namely > that "the partner of the player who psyches has a > heightened awareness that in the given situation the > call may be psychic". I don't think anyone disagrees with this, as long as we agree that 'partnership understanding' is _what must be disclosed_. _How_ it must be disclosed is, of course, up to the SO. If the SO is so stupid as to say "not at all," that doesn't make a psychic tendency illegal any more than it makes a particular cue bidding method illegal. > because the offence occurs > before there is any fielding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And this is what worries many of us (and what I've been trying to dig out without success). L40E seems to suggest a distinction between _what must be disclosed_ on the one hand and system or method on the other. It is the latter that can be regulated, but not everything that is disclosed is necessarily system, is it? Whatever the rules might be, I don't see why they are different for psychics than for other bids that require disclosure. It does seem to me that the EBU are on the right track, although possibly for the wrong reason. They regulate, in effect, fielding. I tentatively suggest that fielding suggests not only a failure to disclose *but also* that the psychic is systemic (and usually illegal if so). It is the *systemic basis*, not the failure to disclose, that should cause the board to be thrown out. After all, failure to disclose is only ordinary MI, and we don't throw out the board for that. Let me remind people again about the 10-point 1 NT opening when the card on the table says 15-17. The players accidentally put out the wrong card; the agreed range was 10-12. This is a 100% clear "concealed partnership understanding," yet the 100% response on BLML was to adjust for MI and not cancel the board or do anything else drastic. (Maybe a small PP, of course, if warranted.) I fail to see why an undisclosed psychic should be treated any differently *unless* it is judged to be an illegal system. How to make the judgment of systemic or not isn't so obvious, but surely the criteria in the CoP are at least part of the story. Fielding may be a bigger part. And related systemic methods are probably the biggest part of all. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 08:15:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6MMD5217694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:13:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6MMCwt17690 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:12:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.148] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13G7aG-000PBO-00; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:17:24 +0100 Message-ID: <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:19:05 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > There is no 'rule' The CoP has expressed a view as to > > what constitutes a partnership understanding, namely > > that "the partner of the player who psyches has a > > heightened awareness that in the given situation the > > call may be psychic". > > I don't think anyone disagrees with this, as long as we agree that > 'partnership understanding' is _what must be disclosed_. _How_ it must > be disclosed is, of course, up to the SO. If the SO is so stupid as to > say "not at all," that doesn't make a psychic tendency illegal any more > than it makes a particular cue bidding method illegal. > > > because the offence occurs > > before there is any fielding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > And this is what worries many of us (and what I've been trying to dig > out without success). L40E seems to suggest a distinction between _what > must be disclosed_ on the one hand and system or method on the other. > It is the latter that can be regulated, but not everything that is > disclosed is necessarily system, is it? > +=+ 'System' becomes a difficult word here. The laws refer to the requirement for disclosure of 'partnership understandings'. It is not quite accurate that 'how' an understanding is to be disclosed is up to the SO alone. What I mean here is that Law 40E establishes a power for an SO to 'prescribe a convention card *on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements*'. The law book defines the use of the CC to that extent if one is prescribed. If I understand the language the law says that if there is a CC and you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, the CC should list it. What else may be required is up to the SO. Where a CC is required I do not agree it can ever be said that the SO has not provided the means for prior announcement of an understanding, whether in regard to psyches or to the style of cue bidding. +=+ > > Whatever the rules might be, I don't see why they are different for > psychics than for other bids that require disclosure. > +=+ I am not conscious of any difference. I think our partnership understandings must be disclosed, including any that relate to psychic action. +=+ > > It does seem to me that the EBU are on the right track, although > possibly for the wrong reason. They regulate, in effect, fielding. I > tentatively suggest that fielding suggests not only a failure to > disclose *but also* that the psychic is systemic (and usually illegal if > so). It is the *systemic basis*, not the failure to disclose, that > should cause the board to be thrown out. After all, failure to disclose > is only ordinary MI, and we don't throw out the board for that. > +=+ The EBU regulations require that you must disclose on your convention card "implicit understandings in bidding and play". The Director may penalize a player who has failed to complete his convention card 'properly'. The EBU says that 'fielding' may 'provide evidence of an unauthorized - and therefore illegal - understanding'. (There is nothing in the regs to deny there may be other evidence that will show such an understanding). The EBU regulations also say that "all agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of your partnership must be fully disclosed to opponents". They say that systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted, and that 'a psychic bid is a legitimate ploy as long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for opponents'. There is a ban on psyching artificial openings that are game forcing or nearly game forcing. The EBU requires players to ensure that any convention they use is permitted. I imagine that, to be consistent, use of an illegal convention and making an illegal psychic bid are treated similarly. DWS can tell us about that. The power to regulate derives from L40D, and I am entirely clear that it includes the power of the SO to regulate (ban if it wishes) partnership understandings that allow initial bids, at the one level, to be made on a hand a K or more below average strength. Whilst the SO may not ban a true psychic, the moment a partnership understanding develops it has very considerable powers if it wishes to use them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 08:15:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6MMDQH17706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6MMDIt17702 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:13:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29903 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2000 22:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.144) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 22 Jul 2000 22:15:58 -0000 Message-ID: <397A1DBA.4C76CCF2@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 01:18:34 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robin Barker CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertant POOT References: <200007190837.JAA26342@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ruling ...ok but please all , be acurate : It is POOR Pass Out Of Rotation , not POOT.... Pass Robin Barker wrote: > Busy night at the club last night, including one judgement ruling! > Must be the heat. > > This was the most complex ruling I have had at our club in a while. > > Pairs, dealer North. > > W N E S > 1D P 2C > P 3NT P 4NT > - P P TD > > Before West can call over 4NT, North passes and East passes. > Now everyone notices what has happened and calls the TD. > > I am wondering if this is a POOT condoned, with West retaining > the right to call if South passes; when North explains that he > was trying to alert 4NT. This looks plausible, and East/West > agree that this is probably what North was trying to do. > > Anyone care to try and give the correct ruling, which may be > the one I gave :-) > > 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 > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 08:15:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6MMDG917701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:13:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6MMD9t17696 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 08:13:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.148] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13G7aI-000PBO-00; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:17:26 +0100 Message-ID: <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:05:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > Please, please, please stop them Grattan! (banning psyches or else we will > NEVER be able to open a 3 card 1D or strong 1C or multi-2 because they WILL > all eventually be regarded as psyches by the purists and we will be reduced > to Chess!) > > For Bridge's sake. > +=+ Who? me? Which me? I have two personas - one proclaiming strong, sometimes unwelcome, personal opinions, and the other that dutifully accepts and recites the corporate wisdom of the WBFLC. I do fight for what I believe right in committee but, decision made, like the other members of the committee I toe the line in my official role. You must not expect me to persuade these seasoned colleagues every time I speak. Dear me, I may even not always be right. But what about your plea? Well, forget all the arguments of the past weeks. Let us take a cool look at where we are. First, I do agree that whatever we do must be for the sake of the game. With Edgar departed we are no longer minded to allow any single personal agenda to be driven through. We are trying to listen and to hear. No-one at WBF level, that I know of, believes that we can or should ban psyches. There are people at lower points on the pyramid who argue for it and it is a matter for their own local democratic process whether they obtain the majority of votes to do it. My own private belief is that in some levels of competition it is reasonable if someone wishes to prohibit psyches where their effect would be disruptive, particularly amongst weak and/or inexperienced players, but in general NO. It is against the law to have an understanding about psyching, implicit or explicit, and not announce it before opponents come up against a psyche based upon it. They are entitled to know what you are well aware may happen and to consider how they will counter it. If you announce an agreement to psyche, implicit or explicit, the Sponsoring Org (or as I prefer to say the Regulating Authority) is entitled to regulate understandings that involve psyching calls that according to your system arrangements would be conventional in normal use; they may also regulate any understanding that involves initial action at the one level on a hand with fewer than eight HCP. Both of these powers are conferred by Law 40D and they include, today as we write, power to ban psychic action in respect of which there is an agreement. These last statements are written with the full minuted authority of the WBF Laws Committee. The laws leave it to regulation to determine what is allowed, what is forbidden, in these areas; so the local body can produce conditions of play which meet its perception of the needs of each tournament and which are supported by a majority of its governing committee. My personal belief, many times expressed, is that it is wrong to attempt to do more in the laws than establish the base line and to enable these local decisions then to be made by those who are better equipped to judge the local needs. We do not want the opinions of, say, Ethiopia to be incorporated in the laws in order to force them upon everybody. That way lies disaster and disintegration of any cohesive worldwide approach. We must look to persuasion and example to encourage greater harmony in the way the laws are applied across the globe. I do not believe your fears are justified, but we must all be vigilant against any tendency to impose a single rigid decree delivered from the Oracle of Zeus in Dodona.[:-))] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ P.S. 'Org?', says my spellchecker, "Do you mean Orgy?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 18:17:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6N8GPs17911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:16:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6N8GGt17907 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:16:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14941 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2000 08:18:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.162) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 23 Jul 2000 08:18:52 -0000 Message-ID: <397AAB08.5766E4F4@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:21:29 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Noel & Pamela , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Orgy ???? Don't eat too much.......this is the original meaning of orgy ! I agree you let the national organizations swallow the WBFLC's food on their own taste and cleverness.....it takes time , but the final result is better , no doubt ! I am afraid that the worldwide ideas of democracy push most of the people to anarchy ...they lost the main idea of education or what you to persuade, which is only a part of education. Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ================================= > " For it so falls out that what we have we > prize not to the worth whiles we enjoy it, > but being lacked and lost, why then we rack > the value. " (Much Ado) > ================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Noel & Pamela > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 4:29 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > Please, please, please stop them Grattan! (banning psyches or else we will > > NEVER be able to open a 3 card 1D or strong 1C or multi-2 because they > WILL > > all eventually be regarded as psyches by the purists and we will be > reduced > > to Chess!) > > > > For Bridge's sake. > > > +=+ Who? me? Which me? I have two personas - > one proclaiming strong, sometimes unwelcome, > personal opinions, and the other that dutifully > accepts and recites the corporate wisdom of > the WBFLC. I do fight for what I believe right > in committee but, decision made, like the > other members of the committee I toe the > line in my official role. You must not expect > me to persuade these seasoned colleagues > every time I speak. Dear me, I may even not > always be right. > But what about your plea? > Well, forget all the arguments of the past weeks. > Let us take a cool look at where we are. First, I do > agree that whatever we do must be for the sake of > the game. With Edgar departed we are no longer > minded to allow any single personal agenda to be > driven through. We are trying to listen and to hear. > No-one at WBF level, that I know of, believes > that we can or should ban psyches. There are > people at lower points on the pyramid who argue > for it and it is a matter for their own local > democratic process whether they obtain the > majority of votes to do it. My own private belief is > that in some levels of competition it is reasonable > if someone wishes to prohibit psyches where their > effect would be disruptive, particularly amongst > weak and/or inexperienced players, but in general > NO. > It is against the law to have an understanding > about psyching, implicit or explicit, and not > announce it before opponents come up against > a psyche based upon it. They are entitled to > know what you are well aware may happen and > to consider how they will counter it. > If you announce an agreement to psyche, > implicit or explicit, the Sponsoring Org (or > as I prefer to say the Regulating Authority) > is entitled to regulate understandings that > involve psyching calls that according to your > system arrangements would be conventional > in normal use; they may also regulate any > understanding that involves initial action at > the one level on a hand with fewer than eight > HCP. Both of these powers are conferred by > Law 40D and they include, today as we write, > power to ban psychic action in respect of > which there is an agreement. These last > statements are written with the full minuted > authority of the WBF Laws Committee. The > laws leave it to regulation to determine > what is allowed, what is forbidden, in these > areas; so the local body can produce > conditions of play which meet its perception > of the needs of each tournament and which > are supported by a majority of its governing > committee. My personal belief, many times > expressed, is that it is wrong to attempt to > do more in the laws than establish the base > line and to enable these local decisions then > to be made by those who are better equipped > to judge the local needs. We do not want the > opinions of, say, Ethiopia to be incorporated > in the laws in order to force them upon > everybody. That way lies disaster and > disintegration of any cohesive worldwide > approach. We must look to persuasion and > example to encourage greater harmony in > the way the laws are applied across the > globe. > I do not believe your fears are justified, > but we must all be vigilant against any > tendency to impose a single rigid decree > delivered from the Oracle of Zeus in > Dodona.[:-))] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > P.S. 'Org?', says my spellchecker, "Do > you mean Orgy?" > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 18:37:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6N8b6e17925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:37:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6N8awt17921 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:37:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21203 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2000 08:39:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.2.162) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 23 Jul 2000 08:39:35 -0000 Message-ID: <397AAFE3.C9B31739@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:42:11 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gordon Bower CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law 72b1 ..."could have known" is about - quote- .."at the time of his irregularity".....Here is no problem with the moment of irregularity -> IMHO the offender couldn't have known then for 101%...... The same with law 23 - I remember the discussions , before 1997 release was inforced , that after the updating of 72b1 , law 23 is useless (because it was updated too with "could have known"... ) the most important reason was to let the old numbers of the laws "as is". You made an incorrect ruling ...now it is your nightmares what to do according to Law 82C Sleep well and sweet dreams Dany Gordon Bower wrote: > I gave an incorrect ruling at the club last night, thanks to glancing too > hastily at L31. > > In second seat a player made an OBOOT of 1S, not accepted, and the real > opener bid 2D, weak. I told second seat he could pass or make any legal > bid but couldn't double, and explained that his partner had to pass once > over spades and forever over anything else. > > Now looking back a L31, I see that the OBOOTer *is* allowed to make any > legal call, including a "takeout"-but-partner-is-barred double. Thiscould > well be an ussue on the actual cards, since OBOOTer had 5 spades and 5 > diamonds. (He played 2S making 4, and might have gotten 500 against 2Dx.) > > L23 still applies, and L31A2 contains a pointer to L23 (damaging enforced > pass) explicitly. If the OBOOTer had doubled and gotten a good score > I would instinctively be inclined to adjust the score. I am not sure I > should. > > Anyway, two questions: > > 1. Suppose I explain correctly, OBOOTer doubles and gets his 500, opener > is miffed that his opponents gained the chance to double and set him > because of their irregularity. L23 says "if the offender at the time of > his irregularity could have known" etc etc - this seems to say that, since > I don't believe *at the time he made the 1S call*, offender was attempting > to penalize the as-yet-unmentioned diamonds, there is no redress. This > would, of course, entage the non-offending opener, and I would have to > agree it doesn't seem fair. > > Is this really the right ruling? > > 2. L27B2 contains the same pointer to L23, so if someone intentionally > made an insufficient bid to bar partner and then corrected it to Double, > it would be clear to take the score away from him. But we bar correction > of an insufficient bid to a double outright. > > Why the need to treat these two situations differently? > > GRB > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 20:48:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NAlAo17974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:47:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NAl2t17969 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:47:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-233.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.233]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0949736B98; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:52:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005001bff493$2fff65e0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:30:47 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan answered somewhere in our never ending discussion about psyches the following: > Well, forget all the arguments of the past weeks. >Let us take a cool look at where we are. A good question, I don't have the slightest idea. First, I do >agree that whatever we do must be for the sake of >the game. With Edgar departed we are no longer >minded to allow any single personal agenda to be >driven through. In a personal reaction I have asked Grattan to stop his never ending accusations against Edgar Kaplan. He apparently doesn't, which is his poor right. But it might have been better to show this brave attitude within the LC chaired by Edgar, using the help of other members to avoid not supported decisions. My personal experience with Edgar is that he almost always was willing to listen to and to accept good arguments. May be there was a problem there? Anyway I want to take distance from these attacks, being unfair and too easy for more than one reason. > We are trying to listen and to hear. > No-one at WBF level, that I know of, believes >that we can or should ban psyches. There are >people at lower points on the pyramid who argue >for it and it is a matter for their own local >democratic process whether they obtain the >majority of votes to do it. Can you tell us with what law in hand they might do that? My own private belief is >that in some levels of competition it is reasonable >if someone wishes to prohibit psyches where their >effect would be disruptive, particularly amongst >weak and/or inexperienced players, but in general >NO. I agree with that statement, that in some events it would be better not to use psyches, as it would be better not to claim, just for the benefit of the opponents. Bridge probably should not be played where the differences in strength are to big. > It is against the law to have an understanding >about psyching, implicit or explicit, and not >announce it before opponents come up against >a psyche based upon it. As far as I understand the discussion we do not agree with this statement. The sentence should stop after 'psyching' then being in accordance with 40A. You are now saying that it is allowed to have an understanding about psyches under certain conditions. Could you tell which law does support this statement? >They are entitled to >know what you are well aware may happen and >to consider how they will counter it. > If you announce an agreement to psyche I prefer an approach that as soon as you announce such a thing it is not a psyche anymore. A psyche is a (gross) deviation of an agreement. , >implicit or explicit, the Sponsoring Org (or >as I prefer to say the Regulating Authority) >is entitled Well, we know that the WBF and the EBL did so. But I am not so sure that they were entitled to do so, as I said before. The WBF seems to have abandoned this approach now. to regulate understandings that >involve psyching calls that according to your >system arrangements would be conventional >in normal use; they may also regulate any >understanding that involves initial action at >the one level on a hand with fewer than eight >HCP. Both of these powers are conferred by >Law 40D and they include, today as we write, >power to ban psychic action in respect of >which there is an agreement. This is confusing. On the surface we seem to agree, but we don't. There can't be an agreement (understanding) about a psyching action. >These last >statements are written with the full minuted >authority of the WBF Laws Committee. Are you saying that the LC in a meeting agreed to allow S.O. to forbid psyches based on the authority to forbid weak opening bids? And if not, what are you saying then? >The >laws leave it to regulation to determine >what is allowed, what is forbidden, in these >areas; so the local body can produce >conditions of play which meet its perception >of the needs of each tournament and which >are supported by a majority of its governing >committee. This statement is too easy, too general and not true, therefore causing confusion. My personal belief, many times >expressed, is that it is wrong to attempt to >do more in the laws than establish the base >line and to enable these local decisions then >to be made by those who are better equipped >to judge the local needs. We do not want the >opinions of, say, Ethiopia to be incorporated >in the laws in order to force them upon >everybody. That way lies disaster and >disintegration of any cohesive worldwide >approach. We must look to persuasion and >example to encourage greater harmony in >the way the laws are applied across the >globe. Bravo > I do not believe your fears are justified, >but we must all be vigilant against any >tendency to impose a single rigid decree >delivered from the Oracle of Zeus in >Dodona.[:-))] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Where do you consider to stay yourself on your scale of: Democrat -- Oracle of Zeus in Dodona -- Cabal (in my dictionary an intriguer) - Ton Kooijman -- Edgar Kaplan? And if this row is wrongly interpreted you might consider the possibility that your statements in this respect where less careful than desirable. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 20:51:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NApJk17994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:51:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NApCt17985 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:51:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-202.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.202]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15934 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:55:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3979AD1F.4656E55D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:18:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <39781E0A.F19671DE@village.uunet.be> <004701bff360$028f02c0$095608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > " For it so falls out that what we have we > prize not to the worth whiles we enjoy it, > but being lacked and lost, why then we rack > the value. " (Much Ado) > ================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Herman De Wael > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > As to your H1H ... discussion is boring. Do you > > > know of any of the world's bridge authorities > > > that would agree with a contention that there > > > is no partnership understanding involved? > > > > Well, as I've stated many times before, there is, or could > > be, partnership knowledge. My partners usually don't have a > > clue but that's beside the point. > > > > I've stated many times before that this knowledge must be > > disclosed. Call it experience or understanding, I don't > > care. > > > > I will bow over to the WBFLC who have decided that it can be > > partnership understanding. OK, fine by me. > > > > Where I refuse to cross the next line, however, is in the > > immediate assumption that if it is partnership > > understanding, it must be a banned system. > > > +=+ Now, there is the point. When an understanding > is announced it is open to the regulating body to > regulate it. That can be a ban, but in the case of the > WBF it is not a total ban - there are conditions of > use, including prohibition of certain classes of action > in certain competitions, and it is open for each SO > to allow the actions if it chooses. In many NBOs > psyches based upon partnership understandings > are not allowed. What the law forbids is the psyche > based upon a concealed PU. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry Grattan, but we do seem to be going around in circles. you say : > What the law forbids is the psyche > based upon a concealed PU. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ of course. We are still talking about psyches. Not about partnerships who are trying to cheat. you say : > +=+ Now, there is the point. When an understanding > is announced it is open to the regulating body to > regulate it. That can be a ban, but in the case of the The understanding is NOT announced ! Partner knows absolutely nothing. Except that his partner is a -regular-occasional-never- psycher, and how he psyches when he does. If you want to call that partnership understanding, then so be it. But there is no announced understanding - no agreement. Now I agree : > it is open to the regulating body to > regulate it. But if they do, they have created a once-a-lifetime psyching rule. Please Grattan, understand that you can be harsh on one front or on the other, but if you are as harsh as you seem to want to be on both fronts at the same time, you are effectively banning psyching. And that CANNOT be right. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 20:51:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NApO717995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:51:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NApFt17987 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:51:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-202.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.202]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15938 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:55:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3979B251.B0404C29@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:40:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Todd, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >From: Herman De Wael > > > But the decision to ban that bid is not based on whether > > > or not it is a psych. Some bids may be both destructive > > > and psyches, but the ability to cope is a problem related > > > to destructive bids and not psyches. > > > >If it is a psyche, it cannot be banned. > > This is not true. There are a great many banned psyches. OK, there are some banned psyches. This is not a psyche of a specific banned type. So it cannot be banned. > As far as > destructiveness, open 4S with a spade void. How often will you be allowed > to get away with that? > What do you mean. Partner will shoot me, you mean ? > > > As I said before, I don't believe this is germane to the > > > psyching problem. Destructive bids will be banned for the > > > reason that they are destructive. Then you needn't even > > > bother thinking whether or not it was a psych. It's > > > already banned. > > > >Destructive bids are NOT banned because they are > >destructive, or the 4Sp opening should be banned. > > A 4S opening on a long spade suit is not (purely) destructive. It's > pre-emptive. > Well define destructive then : I'm using as definition : "a call which prevents opponents from reaching their optimum contract in some comfort, without having to gamble". Under that definition, 4Sp is a destructive opening. > > > >The information that my partner gets fro his experience with > > > >me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. > > > > > > Quote please? > > > >Well, L16 perhaps ? > > It's not there. > Well, it's a call, legal (in the sense of not being insufficient), and there's nothing else. > > > I fail to see the loop. The entire point of banning psyches > > > at the moment is that there develops a concealed partnership > > > understanding. > > > >Well, no psyche can ever be banned. > > You must convince yourself that this is not true. > Answered above for specific types. All other psyches cannot be banned. If it can be banned, it is a systemic, and I choose not to call that a psyche. I'm starting from the premise that a psyche is not systemic and can thus not be banned. > >But that was not the point. > >You were talking about UI. > >CPU's are not UI. > > Then CPU's are AI? Of course they are ! Whyever not ? CPU's are banned not because of UI, but because of the "C" part. > When you open 1H in the third seat, your partner > cannot bid as if that's weak by either laws 16A and 40B. Nothing in L16 > says that a CPU cannot be considered extraneous information from partner and > thus UI. It is extraneous information. How can it be extraneous ? The only people that know it are the partners. But this is really no point in the discussion. Of course my partner could be bidding very cautiously over my third hand openings. If he does, I would consider that evidence of PU. CPU if not disclosed, and we should use L40C to deal with this, not L40A, as stated. But surely nothing can prevent a player from using the information he has available to him from past partnership experience ? > > > >Exactly, the lethal combination. You are banning my opening > >simply because I tell everyone that I have done the same > >psyche before. > >That cannot be right. There must be some other reason why > >my bid is banned. Enough said. > Now this is really to cry over, Todd : > If H1H is a psych, you develop a CPU. What the hell is that supposed to mean !!!!! If I play with a complete novice that I've never met in my life, and I do a H1H, how can there be PU, let alone CPU ? By definition, a CPU is not a psyche. So how can you write something like the above. > If H1H is disclosed and not a psych, you are playing an illegal system. I am asking you to tell me why the H1H is banned. Your answer is "because it is illegal". Please realize that you have not answered my question. > Telling everyone only brings the attention to yourself. I am trying to fulfil my obligations of full disclosure. I am telling (or trying to tell) my opponents. Not my partner. > The action > would still be illegal if you told no one. You'd just have to wait longer > until they figure it out for themselves. > I am glad you see that my telling opponents does not alter the legality of the opening. You are not banning me because I put it on my CC, thank you. But that also means, and proves, that you call the action illegal only because I have done it before. That CAN NOT be correct. As an aside, is it really good for the game that something should be illegal, and that players do better in not fulfilling their obligations of full disclosure, in order for the illegal thing to remain undiscovered ? I find my approach far better for the game : please do tell about psyches, and let the director investigate whether or not there is PU about it. But don't let the bid be banned merely because of the free admission that a player has done this before. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 23:56:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NDtYE18080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:55:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NDtRt18074 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:55:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-228.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09589 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:59:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397AD6AA.B863E552@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:27:38 +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: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There was a lot of good sense in what Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ Who? me? Which me? I have two personas - > one proclaiming strong, sometimes unwelcome, > personal opinions, and the other that dutifully > accepts and recites the corporate wisdom of > the WBFLC. I do fight for what I believe right > in committee but, decision made, like the > other members of the committee I toe the > line in my official role. You must not expect > me to persuade these seasoned colleagues > every time I speak. Dear me, I may even not > always be right. All this is well understood by most, I believe. > But what about your plea? > Well, forget all the arguments of the past weeks. That might not be such a ba idea. > Let us take a cool look at where we are. First, I do > agree that whatever we do must be for the sake of > the game. With Edgar departed we are no longer > minded to allow any single personal agenda to be > driven through. We are trying to listen and to hear. > No-one at WBF level, that I know of, believes > that we can or should ban psyches. There are > people at lower points on the pyramid who argue > for it and it is a matter for their own local > democratic process whether they obtain the > majority of votes to do it. My own private belief is > that in some levels of competition it is reasonable > if someone wishes to prohibit psyches where their > effect would be disruptive, particularly amongst > weak and/or inexperienced players, but in general > NO. Agreed. Completely. Even sith the personal opinion. Some clubs don't like psyches. Probably because they don't know how to deal with them. Let them make their rules. I won't psyche there. > It is against the law to have an understanding > about psyching, implicit or explicit, and not > announce it before opponents come up against > a psyche based upon it. They are entitled to > know what you are well aware may happen and > to consider how they will counter it. Agreed. And I see Grattan is no longer saying that the psyche is banned. It will be dealt with by L40C. > If you announce an agreement to psyche, > implicit or explicit, the Sponsoring Org (or > as I prefer to say the Regulating Authority) > is entitled to regulate understandings that > involve psyching calls that according to your > system arrangements would be conventional > in normal use; they may also regulate any > understanding that involves initial action at > the one level on a hand with fewer than eight > HCP. As I've stated before, I don't like the limit that the Laws impose on the SO. The SO's are very good at finding ways round these limits, and ban whatever they choose. But let's go on. > Both of these powers are conferred by > Law 40D and they include, today as we write, > power to ban psychic action in respect of > which there is an agreement. A small contradictio in terminis but we all know what is meant. > These last > statements are written with the full minuted > authority of the WBF Laws Committee. The > laws leave it to regulation to determine > what is allowed, what is forbidden, in these > areas; so the local body can produce > conditions of play which meet its perception > of the needs of each tournament and which > are supported by a majority of its governing > committee. OK, so that is the end of Grattan's contribution as his first persona. We really must go check some individual system's policies now. I propose we start with the WBF system's policy. I'll go get a recent copy. > My personal belief, many times > expressed, is that it is wrong to attempt to > do more in the laws than establish the base > line and to enable these local decisions then > to be made by those who are better equipped > to judge the local needs. We do not want the > opinions of, say, Ethiopia to be incorporated > in the laws in order to force them upon > everybody. That way lies disaster and > disintegration of any cohesive worldwide > approach. We must look to persuasion and > example to encourage greater harmony in > the way the laws are applied across the > globe. I don't see why Ethiopia should not be able to add valuable input. But the regional differences are accepted and will always remain. > I do not believe your fears are justified, > but we must all be vigilant against any > tendency to impose a single rigid decree > delivered from the Oracle of Zeus in > Dodona.[:-))] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I prefer the oracle of Apollo in Didima myself. I asked it at the end of last year if I would find a woman this year. The response I got was : the queen of diamonds to your left. I've been following that advice and have a 50% record so far (1 out of 2). > P.S. 'Org?', says my spellchecker, "Do > you mean Orgy?" > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 23 23:56:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NDtcr18084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:55:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NDtVt18079 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-228.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.228]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09598 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:59:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397AE1A5.62E83FA0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:14:29 +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: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan and Steve contributed valuable posts on this subject, but I wipe the slate clean and start afresh. There is a general agreement on blml that psyching tendencies are, or at the very least should be, disclosable. There is some confusion over where in the Laws this is stated exactly, but the principle is accepted by (almost) all. There was an opinion on this list that a psyche about which more is known than told is illegal. The words CPU came up most often, and the call was ruled illegal per L40A. We have managed, over the past few months, to change people's opinions in this matter. Steve's last post said it very eloquently. Why should this be treated any differently than the 10HCP 1NT with the wrong CC? I believe many of us now share the view that if there is some part of the psyching tendency which could have been known to partner, and this was not disclosed to opponents, redress is possible via L40C, of course only if there has been damage. But the battle (my personal crusade) has not yet been won. There remains a majority opinion on this list that states that if something is disclosable, it is also regulable, and (in most tournaments) regulated, and -very often- banned. The anti-psyching lobby (not that any of you would admit to being members of that) have switched their rifles to another shoulder and have put their faith in L40E in stead of L40A. I agree with Grattan when he says that if something is partnership understanding, it can be regulated, provided it meets certain criteria. I even want to go further and say that an SO should be able to ban everything, since the criteria now in use are not very restrictive anyway. However that does not solve our problem. In most system's policies, no such barring of psyches or psyching tendencies are present. Rather, proponents of this way of thinking refer to the general system policies, mostly inspired on one another and on the WBF policy, which includes a category commonly categorized as "yellow", and which includes weak openings at the one level. Now I agree that this is correct, but it still does not solve our problem. As I've said before, if the only thing that is present in a partnership is the knowledge that one partner has psyched before (perhaps in some recurrent manner), then this cannot be enough to ban the call. After all, in all cases, even when partner does not know, it is the fact that "partner could have known" which the TD will take into account. And then you're in trouble, not for changing anything to your system, but simply because you have done a particular psyche before. Many of you have said it is not the same thing, but it is. This is a once-a-lifetime rule. So it cannot be a correct ruling. Let's face it, there must be a middle category of things which are disclosable, but not regulated (at least not by the major SO's). Now there are two ways of accomplishing this. We could call this category "partnership experience", and say that is disclosable as per L75C, but not "partnership understanding", and regulable under L40C. Or we could say that this category is "partnership understanding", and regulable, but that the major SO's do not in fact regulate against these things. My personal favourite was the first approach, and I have argued vehemently for it. But it seems this has been a lost cause. So I give in, and I agree that SO's really do have the power to ban psyches, even if you do them for the very first time. This seems to be what a majority of lower bridge players actually seem to want, so it must be good for the game as well. But while I have lost a battle, I do not intend to give up the war. I would really like to quote the WBF systems policy here now, but I'll leave that for someone else to paste in. Besides, this post has become to long already. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 01:43:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NFgOu18133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:42:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NFgHt18129 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:42:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.235] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GNxX-000Ach-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:46:31 +0100 Message-ID: <003501bff4bd$8a8dac40$eb5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <005001bff493$2fff65e0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:46:30 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Noel & Pamela ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 11:30 AM Subject: psyches > Can you tell us with what law in hand they might do that? > +=+ No law; just the means to exclude the player who psyches +=+ > > > It is against the law to have an understanding > >about psyching, implicit or explicit, and not > >announce it before opponents come up against > >a psyche based upon it. > > > As far as I understand the discussion we do not agree with this statement. > The sentence should stop after 'psyching' then being in accordance with 40A. > You are now saying that it is allowed to have an understanding about psyches > under certain conditions. Could you tell which law does support this > statement? > +=+ Well, you wish that we should not describe them as psyches when a partnership understanding has developed. So be it. But however you describe them they fall within the scope of 40B. The law does not say that when you announce a partnership understanding about psychic action it is prohibited. It says it comes within the powers of the SO to regulate. The WBF, for example, does regulate such action - it provides that where the expectation is that psyches will be made randomly, but it is understood that if one does occur in a given situation it will be of a specified type, this is allowed subject to this being fully stated on the convention card; it adds that an understanding that psychic bids are expected or likely in specific situations (or where they are protected by system) is a Brown Sticker understanding and therefore prohibited in some events, such as the Round Robin in Maastricht. As an example it quotes third in hand psyches at favourable vulnerability where a player is expected to open the bidding on anything at all. [I would think another likely candidate might be: 1 plum - double - 1 psychic where as a matter of partnership understanding or (Law 75B) implicit agreement, naming a suit does not show the suit in conformity with the prescription of what is non-conventional]. +=+ > > >They are entitled to > >know what you are well aware may happen and > >to consider how they will counter it. > > If you announce an agreement to psyche > > I prefer an approach that as soon as you announce such a thing it is not a > psyche anymore. A psyche is a (gross) deviation of an agreement. > +=+ Yes, I too like this approach. Let me try to restate what I said using it. If you announce what your partnership understandings are and then say that you have a further understanding that the partnership will periodically grossly misstate the suit length or honour strength that you have prescribed, that further understanding is also subject to regulation under Law 40D. If it involves the possibility of initial action with a hand a King or more less than an average hand, or if it involves a call that is conventional in the announced meanings, it may be prohibited. This is one of the powers that 40D incorporates, and the WBFLC did formally communicate to the EBL, in response to a question formally asked, that 'regulate' in 40D includes the power to prohibit. The EBL and the WBF both used that ruling to ban certain psyches of conventions in pairs events, and so have some other SOs, I believe. Most recently it was reaffirmed in our minutes of Sep.'98. And that power to prohibit is used pretty well universally today. For example, Brown Sticker conventions may not be played in the Round Robin at Maastricht. I do not know whether The Netherlands has prohibitions of certain conventions in some tournaments, the English certainly do, and I am given to understand it is also the case in other Zones. +=+ < > >These last > >statements are written with the full minuted > >authority of the WBF Laws Committee. > > Are you saying that the LC in a meeting agreed to allow S.O. to forbid > psyches based on the authority to forbid weak opening bids? And if not, what > are you saying then? > +=+ That the word 'regulate' in 40D includes the power to ban. See above. +=+ > > >The > >laws leave it to regulation to determine > >what is allowed, what is forbidden, in these > >areas; so the local body can produce > >conditions of play which meet its perception > >of the needs of each tournament and which > >are supported by a majority of its governing > >committee. > > This statement is too easy, too general and > not true, therefore causing confusion. > +=+ Here you have lost me. Are you saying that the WBF does not have the power to regulate partnership understandings about psychic action? That no NBO or Zone has? It would upset a lot of people if the LC were to support this opinion. Mind you, if the bid is not a psyche any more when it is the subject of a partnership agreement, I do not see how the definition of 'psychic call' works since the concept of a gross misstatement becomes difficult. +=+ > > > I do not believe your fears are justified, > >but we must all be vigilant against any > >tendency to impose a single rigid decree > >delivered from the Oracle of Zeus in > >Dodona.[:-))] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Where do you consider to stay yourself on > your scale of: Democrat -- Oracle > of Zeus in Dodona -- Cabal (in my dictionary an intriguer) - Ton > Kooijman -- Edgar Kaplan? > +=+ I consider myself one of a group. I say that if any of us in that group were to have a private agenda and the group were to combine in pursuit of it, the group would then fairly be described as a 'cabal'. I am not conscious that I have suggested such a cabal exists today, I believe the WBFLC has shown its determination that it shall not be like that. I am an advocate, not only in bridge, of total transparency so that the actions and decisions of those with power are fully open to examination. I will save your feelings by not going over past experiences, but you are in no position to suggest that I failed to oppose what I thought was wrong. I admit that largely the best I could achieve was the mitigation of some of the worst features through compromises. As for the present debate, I regret that you consider it a row; I see it as a vigorous and mature discussion with some strong differences in our personal opinions, but without any descent into abuse. If you have construed anything I said as personal abuse, and reasonably so, I did not intend it as such and apologise. Opinions strongly expressed are acceptable otherwise amongst adults of strong convictions and in an age of enlightened transparency there should be no embarrassment in open disagreement. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 03:38:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NHblV18204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 03:37:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f135.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NHbft18200 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 03:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:42:00 -0700 Received: from 172.128.219.130 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.219.130] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:41:59 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 17:42:00.0023 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DCA2670:01BFF4CD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael > > As far as destructiveness, open 4S with a spade void. > > How often will you be allowed to get away with that? > >What do you mean. Partner will shoot me, you mean ? It's a destructive bid. It's not allowed to be part of your system. As a psych, your partner will probably quickly start pulling to 5C. I can't imagine that you could get away with it more than once. > > A 4S opening on a long spade suit is not (purely) > > destructive. It's pre-emptive. > >Well define destructive then : I'm using as definition : "a >call which prevents opponents from reaching their optimum >contract in some comfort, without having to gamble". Under >that definition, 4Sp is a destructive opening. A system whose *only* purpose is interference. 4S with a long spade suit actually gets you to a playable contract. 4S with a void does not. > > > > >The information that my partner gets fro his experience with > > > > >me, and fro my (and opponent's bids) is by definition AI. > > > > > > > > Quote please? > > > > > >Well, L16 perhaps ? > > > > It's not there. > >Well, it's a call, legal (in the sense of not being >insufficient), and there's nothing else. Partner's experience with you is not a call. It may be based on calls you have made, but it is not a call. > > >But that was not the point. > > >You were talking about UI. > > >CPU's are not UI. > > > > Then CPU's are AI? > >Of course they are ! Whyever not ? >CPU's are banned not because of UI, but because of the "C" >part. I disagree. Remove L40 from the books and all previous CPU rulings will fall prey to L16. But I guess this is a moot point for discussion. L40 takes precedence and is harsher. > > When you open 1H in the third seat, your partner > > cannot bid as if that's weak by either laws 16A and 40B. Nothing in L16 > > says that a CPU cannot be considered extraneous information from partner >and > > thus UI. It is extraneous information. > >How can it be extraneous ? The only people that know it are >the partners. But this is really no point in the >discussion. L16 does not require that your opponents are aware of the UI. This is why it requires you to shoot yourself in the foot. I'd rather it require you to call the director to shoot you if necessary, however. It is UI once your partner knows and he should treat it as such. >Now this is really to cry over, Todd : > > > If H1H is a psych, you develop a CPU. > >What the hell is that supposed to mean !!!!! > >If I play with a complete novice that I've never met in my >life, and I do a H1H, how can there be PU, let alone CPU ? to develop ~ "to bring into being over time." Give the novice a few months. He'll figure it out. (And this is no way to be teaching a novice.) >By definition, a CPU is not a psyche. Apples -- oranges. A psych is a bid. A CPU is even more intangible than that. Perhaps you could think about it this way: A psych is a gross mis-statement of previously advertised strength. You open H1H and opponents look at the travel brouchure. They see some natural 1H opener. Your partner has been there before and knows that it looks nothing like the pictures. Now, you hire a better advertising agency and they put the weak meaning of H1H somewhere on the pamphlet. (Probably in the fine print.) Your opponents read the brouchure, find the catch, and know what to expect. Is H1H still a psych? > > If H1H is disclosed and not a psych, you are playing an illegal >system. > >I am asking you to tell me why the H1H is banned. >Your answer is "because it is illegal". >Please realize that you have not answered my question. I don't know how many different ways I could restate the same argument. If H1H is not a psych, then it is systemic. Systemic conventional openings at the one level with 0-5 HCP are illegal in my part of the world. Probably in yours too. So, first you have to decide for yourself whether H1H is a psychic bid or not. Is it still psychic when disclosed? > > Telling everyone only brings the attention to yourself. > >I am trying to fulfil my obligations of full disclosure. I >am telling (or trying to tell) my opponents. Not my >partner. There's nothing that you should be telling your opponents that your partner shouldn't already know. Except maybe that your partner's surprize birthday party is next week. >As an aside, is it really good for the game that something >should be illegal, and that players do better in not >fulfilling their obligations of full disclosure, in order >for the illegal thing to remain undiscovered ? We do (unfortunately?) trust that people will police themselves in this game as far as ethics are concerned. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 06:15:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NKCju18280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:12:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NKCct18276 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:12:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-2.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.2]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A97E836BFC; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:17:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:11:28 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> Can you tell us with what law in hand they might do that? >> >+=+ No law; just the means to exclude the player who > psyches +=+ My question was with what law anybody is entitled to ban psyches? I don't think it is in my book (and don't make a joke about that, I am using the one I received from you some months ago). This is a serious subject and if we do not agree how can we convince anybody? >> >> > It is against the law to have an understanding >> >about psyching, implicit or explicit, and not >> >announce it before opponents come up against >> >a psyche based upon it. >> >> >> As far as I understand the discussion we do not agree with this statement. >> The sentence should stop after 'psyching' then being in accordance with >40A. >> You are now saying that it is allowed to have an understanding about >psyches >> under certain conditions. Could you tell which law does support this >> statement? >> >+=+ Well, you wish that we should not describe > them as psyches when a partnership > understanding has developed. So be it. > But however you describe them they fall > within the scope of 40B. Do they? An opponent explains that his 1 S opening shows at least 5 spades and 11 points and furthermore that in third seat it might be done with zero spades and no points at all, even in first seat my partner now and then might do so. How often do you make that call?,I ask? Not more than three, four times a year and we might have 2 or 3 spades and 5 points, you understand? . What I try to say is that this whole statement is an agreement about the meaning of the 1 spade bid. And if this opponent now opens 1 spade it doesn't matter what he holds, it is not a gross misstatement anymore, so it is not a psyche, not even when he holds zero spades and zero points. And yes because it is an agreement the S.O. can forbid the use of the weak version applying 40C. Next table my opponents open the bidding in third position with 1 spade and it appears to be done with 3 points and 2 spades (we play different hands in different rounds). I double and his partner bids 4 spades with JT873 9543 AK4 8. We miss a cold slam in clubs and call the TD, who decides that the 1 spade bid was illegal since the regulations say that an opening bid with 7 or less points is not allowed, he says. It indeed does say so, which is a pity because it should say that an agreement to open with 7 points or less is not allowed. So the TD should have inquired whether this was an agreement. It wasn't they say, and there is no reason not to believe them. So the TD took a wrong decision, based on wrong regulations. Can you tell me whether or not you agree with this approach, including the statement that the S.O. was not allowed to establish this regulation, which I base on law 40A/B/D. The law does not > say that when you announce a partnership > understanding about psychic action it is > prohibited. So here we differ. In my opinion that can't be named a psychic action anymore. The announcement about psyches has to be: we once in a while might deviate from our agreements, we don't know where, we don't know when. Which is not a very interesting message and can't be regulated. It says it comes within the > powers of the SO to regulate. The WBF, > for example, does regulate such action > - it provides that where the expectation > is that psyches will be made randomly, but > it is understood that if one does occur in > a given situation it will be of a specified > type, this is allowed subject to this being > fully stated on the convention card; it adds > that an understanding that psychic bids > are expected or likely in specific situations > (or where they are protected by system) > is a Brown Sticker understanding and > therefore prohibited in some events, such > as the Round Robin in Maastricht. As an > example it quotes third in hand psyches > at favourable vulnerability where a player is > expected to open the bidding on anything > at all. Once more: the use of the word psyche here is confusing, because this description tells that it is part of the system, and yes we can regulate that. [I would think another likely candidate > might be: 1 plum - double - 1 psychic where > as a matter of partnership understanding > or (Law 75B) implicit agreement, naming a > suit does not show the suit in conformity with > the prescription of what is non-conventional]. > +=+ >> >> >They are entitled to >> >know what you are well aware may happen and >> >to consider how they will counter it. >> > If you announce an agreement to psyche >> >> I prefer an approach that as soon as you announce such a thing it is not >a >> psyche anymore. A psyche is a (gross) deviation of an agreement. >> >+=+ Yes, I too like this approach. Let me try to >restate what I said using it. If you announce what >your partnership understandings are and then >say that you have a further understanding that >the partnership will periodically grossly misstate >the suit length or honour strength that you have >prescribed, that further understanding is also >subject to regulation under Law 40D. If it >involves the possibility of initial action with >a hand a King or more less than an average hand, >or if it involves a call that is conventional in the >announced meanings, it may be prohibited. >This is one of the powers that 40D incorporates, >and the WBFLC did formally communicate to >the EBL, in response to a question formally >asked, that 'regulate' in 40D includes the >power to prohibit. The EBL and the WBF both >used that ruling to ban certain psyches of >conventions in pairs events, and so have >some other SOs, I believe. Most recently >it was reaffirmed in our minutes of Sep.'98. > And that power to prohibit is used pretty >well universally today. For example, Brown >Sticker conventions may not be played in the >Round Robin at Maastricht. Which I do not consider to be an improvement in our game, but this is not the issue here. The laws are clear in giving the power to prohibit conventions, who needs a further statement from thw WBF about that? I do not know >whether The Netherlands has prohibitions of >certain conventions in some tournaments, >the English certainly do, and I am given to >understand it is also the case in other Zones. We do too, using 40B and following WBF regulations most of the tim >+=+ >< >> >These last >> >statements are written with the full minuted >> >authority of the WBF Laws Committee. >> >> Are you saying that the LC in a meeting agreed to allow S.O. to forbid >> psyches based on the authority to forbid weak opening bids? And if not, >what >> are you saying then? >> >+=+ That the word 'regulate' in 40D includes >the power to ban. See above. +=+ I keep the feeling that you don't answer my questions. Ban conventions, ban agreements with weak hands, not ban all psyches. The WBFLC never decided such a thing. >> >The >> >laws leave it to regulation to determine >> >what is allowed, what is forbidden, in these >> >areas; so the local body can produce >> >conditions of play which meet its perception >> >of the needs of each tournament and which >> >are supported by a majority of its governing >> >committee. >> >> This statement is too easy, too general and >> not true, therefore causing confusion. >> >+=+ Here you have lost me. Are you saying >that the WBF does not have the power to >regulate partnership understandings about >psychic action? No, I am not saying that. I am saying that your statement above is not true. S.O. are not allowed to determine what is allowed, what is forbidden in these areas, etc. etc. It should be done within the framework of the laws, which is a huge restriction, though not a commonly known one. That no NBO or Zone has? >It would upset a lot of people if the LC >were to support this opinion. Don't worry. it won't. But I really hope it neither will support the idea to forbid genuine psyches. That is the issue we are talking about. Mind you, if >the bid is not a psyche any more when it is >the subject of a partnership agreement, I >do not see how the definition of 'psychic >call' works since the concept of a gross >misstatement becomes difficult. +=+ Why? On the contrary. >> > I do not believe your fears are justified, >> >but we must all be vigilant against any >> >tendency to impose a single rigid decree >> >delivered from the Oracle of Zeus in >> >Dodona.[:-))] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Where do you consider to stay yourself on >> your scale of: Democrat -- Oracle >> of Zeus in Dodona -- Cabal (in my dictionary an intriguer) - Ton >> Kooijman -- Edgar Kaplan? >> >+=+ I consider myself one of a group. I say >that if any of us in that group were to have >a private agenda and the group were to >combine in pursuit of it, the group would >then fairly be described as a 'cabal'. I am >not conscious that I have suggested such >a cabal exists today, I believe the WBFLC >has shown its determination that it shall >not be like that. I am an advocate, not >only in bridge, of total transparency so >that the actions and decisions of those >with power are fully open to examination. >I will save your feelings by not going over >past experiences, but you are in no >position to suggest that I failed to oppose >what I thought was wrong. I know you opposed, but apparently you did not find a majority to support you. Happens to me once in a while. I consider myself in a position to ask you to take your losses and stop complaining. That is how I was told Englishmen behave. I admit that >largely the best I could achieve was the >mitigation of some of the worst features >through compromises. > As for the present debate, I regret >that you consider it a row; I see it as a >vigorous and mature discussion with some >strong differences in our personal opinions, >but without any descent into abuse. If you >have construed anything I said as personal >abuse, Well, certainly as far as Edgar was involved. and reasonably so, I did not intend >it as such and apologise. Opinions strongly >expressed are acceptable otherwise >amongst adults of strong convictions and >in an age of enlightened transparency >there should be no embarrassment in >open disagreement. we agree again. ton ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 06:29:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NKReW18293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:27:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NKRYt18289 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:27:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp236-41.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.41]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A9A3B36B73 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:31:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004001bff4e5$3fd6e7c0$29ecf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] WBF Convention Booklet Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:33:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have tried to find the text of the WBF Convention Booklet online, but I have failed. Can someone please tell me where to find it ? Also, I would like to know when it has last been updated. I hope you do believe I did try David's site, but I may have done it too superficially, so if the text is to be found there after all, be sure to blame me, and not him ... Thanks, Jac (Jac Fuchs) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 06:46:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NKim318317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:44:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NKidt18306 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:44:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.228] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GSgF-000HSd-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bff4e7$cc597260$e45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <39781E0A.F19671DE@village.uunet.be> <004701bff360$028f02c0$095608c3@dodona> <3979AD1F.4656E55D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches: the lost chord. Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:28:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > The understanding is NOT announced ! > Partner knows absolutely nothing. > Except that his partner is a -regular-occasional-never- > psycher, and how he psyches when he does. > +=+ I have nothing new to say except that I do not find your statements clear and even this has a timeworn look. Do you have a partnership understanding ? You appear to say: yes. (I think we can leave out 'never' in the above. You have an understanding that when you psyche in the given situation you will psyche in a certain manner.) Do you announce that understanding? You say 'no'. So it is a concealed partnership understanding. Could you announce the understanding? Yes, on your convention card. The law says that when a CC is prescribed partners are to list their conventions and other agreements on it. If you do announce the understanding, can it be regulated? Yes. Indeed the WBF regulates this particular situation exactly. It allows the understanding provided it is fully disclosed on the CC. But since it can be regulated, other authorities have power to forbid it within their own areas of jurisdiction. Many do, and I believe the EBU is one of them. The WBF has defined 'regulate' as incorporating the power to ban. +=+ < > If you want to call that partnership understanding, then so > be it. > > But there is no announced understanding - no agreement. > +=+ The question whether there is an understanding or agreement is not defined by whether you announce it. It does not depend on whether you explicitly agree it with partner. It can equally arise from what partner knows you do. In the case of some partners they will now know because they read blml. When the understanding exists the requirement to announce it is not optional. If you do not announce it that is an illegal omission. +=+ < > > it is open to the regulating body to > > regulate it. > > But if they do, they have created a once-a-lifetime psyching > rule. > +=+ This is not necessarily so - consider the way the WBF regulates it. +=+ > > Please Grattan, understand that you can be harsh on one > front or on the other, but if you are as harsh as you seem > to want to be on both fronts at the same time, you are > effectively banning psyching. > +=+ I do not 'want' anything, other than to have a clear understanding as to the scope of the law on the subject, and what may be regulated. What I have said about the scope of law and regulation is personal opinion when not quoting the example or authority of the WBF or other bodies. I am neither defending a position nor criticising it, but simply exploring. Perhaps I should add that my continued responses to your attempts to justify your position are not welcomed by ton, who thinks I have said at least enough, nor by Kojak who thinks I am wasting my medicines on an incurable disease (or something like that!) - only it is Sunday afternoon "and my fingers wandered idly, over the noisy keys...... but I struck one chord of music, like the sound of a great Amen". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 06:46:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NKio518318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NKift18308 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:44:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.228] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GSgH-000HSd-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bff4e7$cdb24ba0$e45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <397AE1A5.62E83FA0@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 20:06:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 1:14 PM Subject: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies > Grattan and Steve contributed valuable posts on this > subject, but I wipe the slate clean and start afresh. > > There is a general agreement on blml that psyching > tendencies are, or at the very least should be, disclosable. > +=+ partnership understandings +=+ > > There is some confusion over where in the Laws this is > stated exactly, but the principle is accepted by (almost) > all. > +=+ Most clearly in 75B +=+ > > There was an opinion on this list that a psyche about which > more is known than told is illegal. The words CPU came up > most often, and the call was ruled illegal per L40A. > > We have managed, over the past few months, to change > people's opinions in this matter. Steve's last post said it > very eloquently. Why should this be treated any differently > than the 10HCP 1NT with the wrong CC? > +=+ The subject of the correspondence was psyches which are only an item amongst others covered in 40A +=+ > > I believe many of us now share the view that if there is > some part of the psyching tendency which could have been > known to partner, and this was not disclosed to opponents, > redress is possible via L40C, of course only if there has > been damage. > > But the battle (my personal crusade) has not yet been won. > > There remains a majority opinion on this list that states > that if something is disclosable, it is also regulable, and > (in most tournaments) regulated, and -very often- banned. > +=+ it is partnership understandings that are disclosable if they are not of the universal kind that comes from general experience of the game as distinct from experience in the partnership. (If opponents are aware that in some circumstances their announced methods are not to be relied upon, players are not required to know this without being told.) > > The anti-psyching lobby (not that any of you would admit to > being members of that) have switched their rifles to another > shoulder and have put their faith in L40E in stead of L40A. > +=+ 40E only figures as a means of disclosure. Regulations under 40E are to do with convention card requirements and not with the acceptability of the information put on them. This is a 40D matter.) > > I agree with Grattan when he says that if something is > partnership understanding, it can be regulated, provided it > meets certain criteria. I even want to go further and say > that an SO should be able to ban everything, since the > criteria now in use are not very restrictive anyway. > > However that does not solve our problem. > > In most system's policies, no such barring of psyches or > psyching tendencies are present. Rather, proponents of this > way of thinking refer to the general system policies, mostly > inspired on one another and on the WBF policy, which > includes a category commonly categorized as "yellow", and > which includes weak openings at the one level. > > Now I agree that this is correct, but it still does not > solve our problem. > > As I've said before, if the only thing that is present in a > partnership is the knowledge that one partner has psyched > before (perhaps in some recurrent manner), then this cannot > be enough to ban the call. > +=+ That is one point of view. It is open to regulating bodies to adopt it, modify it, or do something else. +=+ > > After all, in all cases, even when partner does not know, it > is the fact that "partner could have known" which the TD > will take into account. > And then you're in trouble, not for changing anything to > your system, but simply because you have done a particular > psyche before. > > Many of you have said it is not the same thing, but it is. > This is a once-a-lifetime rule. So it cannot be a correct > ruling. > +=+ The Director, and as it may be the AC, has to judge whether an understanding existed. Many people think one previous occasion is not enough evidence for such a finding. The WBF suggests that it may be in some cases, even if very infrequently. There is a judgment to be made in each instance and at the end of the day it matters what the Director/AC believes - the law and the regulations all lead to that question. +=+ > > Let's face it, there must be a middle category of things > which are disclosable, but not regulated (at least not by > the major SO's). > > Now there are two ways of accomplishing this. > > We could call this category "partnership experience", and > say that is disclosable as per L75C, but not "partnership > understanding", and regulable under L40C. > > Or we could say that this category is "partnership > understanding", and regulable, but that the major SO's do > not in fact regulate against these things. > > My personal favourite was the first approach, and I have > argued vehemently for it. But it seems this has been a lost > cause. > > So I give in, and I agree that SO's really do have the power > to ban psyches, even if you do them for the very first > time. This seems to be what a majority of lower bridge > players actually seem to want, so it must be good for the > game as well. > > But while I have lost a battle, I do not intend to give up > the war. > > I would really like to quote the WBF systems policy here > now, but I'll leave that for someone else to paste in. > +=+ The WBF regulation demonstrates that 'to regulate' is not synonymous with 'to prohibit'. I will post it in a separate message. The power to prohibit is for use at the option of the regulating body; it has some limitations inasmuch as it does not apply to a pure psyche where partner is just as surprised by it as opponents, having no heightened awareness that the bid could be a psyche, and the psyche is not a psyche of a convention. Regulation short of prohibition is an option, which the WBF has adopted in part. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 08:26:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NMOci18387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NMONt18375 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GUEg-000LDG-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:28:38 +0100 Message-ID: <002001bff4f5$b7ff7400$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:57:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Noel & Pamela ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:11 PM Subject: Re: psyches > Do they? An opponent explains that his 1 S opening shows at least 5 spades > and 11 points and furthermore that in third seat it might be done with zero > spades and no points at all, even in first seat my partner now and then > might do so. How often do you make that call?,I ask? Not more than three, > four times a year and we might have 2 or 3 spades and 5 points, you > understand? . What I try to say is that this whole statement is an agreement > about the meaning of the 1 spade bid. And if this opponent now opens 1 spade > it doesn't matter what he holds, it is not a gross misstatement anymore, so > it is not a psyche, not even when he holds zero spades and zero points. And > yes because it is an agreement the S.O. can forbid the use of the weak > version applying 40C. > +=+ Applying the power to regulate partnership understandings providing for initial action on hands a King or more below average strength. Where there is such a regulation the bid may be cancelled if it is considered there is a PU. There is not merely redress for damage. It is a 40D situation and in the discretion of the SO regulation may provide for the bid to be cancelled. +=+ ~ Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 08:26:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NMOXP18384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NMOJt18366 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GUEh-000LDG-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <002101bff4f5$b8e14880$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> <397AD6AA.B863E552@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:27:03 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > Agreed. And I see Grattan is no longer saying that the > psyche is banned. It will be dealt with by L40C. > +=+ We are getting closer. But this is not exactly my position. Most understandings about 'psyching' initial action are subject to regulation under 40D and may be treated like any other illegal agreement. In some places that means cancelling the bid. It really is up to the SO to make its regulation as it wishes.. We must not fall into the trap of thinking all SOs treat the situation in the same way As for the WBF I cannot detail a precedent, so I am unable to say how we handle it. More rigorously than most maybe? The supplemental CoCs do not specify penalties for use of an illegal convention; clearly there may be a penalty applied, and score adjustment if appropriate; also the Brown Sticker convention will be struck out and substitution of something else will conform to the regulations for changes to the CC. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 08:26:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NMOZj18385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NMOKt18368 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GUEd-000LDG-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:28:35 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01bff4f5$b5ef7fc0$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:06:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Noel & Pamela ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:11 PM Subject: Re: psyches > > > > >> Can you tell us with what law in hand they might do that? > >> > >+=+ No law; just the means to exclude the player who > > psyches +=+ > > My question was with what law anybody is entitled to ban psyches? I don't > think it is in my book (and don't make a joke about that, I am using the one > I received from you some months ago). > > This is a serious subject and if we do not agree how can we convince > anybody? > > ton > +=+ There is something missing here, what I am saying is not getting across. There is longstanding advice from the highest quarters that says you cannot ban a person from psyching but you can exclude a person who psyches from your game. That is the way psyches are banned in some places right now. That is what I am pointing to. It happens when there is a general consensus more or less that psyching is not wanted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 08:26:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NMOa918386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NMOLt18370 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:24:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GUEe-000LDG-00; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:28:36 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01bff4f5$b6eb44e0$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:34:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Noel & Pamela ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:11 PM Subject: Re: psyches > It says it comes within the > > powers of the SO to regulate. > > > The WBF, > > for example, does regulate such action > > - it provides that where the expectation > > is that psyches will be made randomly, but > > it is understood that if one does occur in > > a given situation it will be of a specified > > type, this is allowed subject to this being > > fully stated on the convention card; it adds > > that an understanding that psychic bids > > are expected or likely in specific situations > > (or where they are protected by system) > > is a Brown Sticker understanding and > > therefore prohibited in some events, such > > as the Round Robin in Maastricht. As an > > example it quotes third in hand psyches > > at favourable vulnerability where a player is > > expected to open the bidding on anything > > at all. > > Once more: the use of the word psyche here is confusing, because > this description tells that it is part of the system, and yes we can > regulate that. > > [I would think another likely candidate > > might be: 1 plum - double - 1 psychic where > > as a matter of partnership understanding > > or (Law 75B) implicit agreement, naming a > > suit does not show the suit in conformity with > > the prescription of what is non-conventional]. > > +=+ > >> +=+ What I say is that here is a WBF regulation based on Law 40D which applies to partnership understandings about violations of announced system where these understandings are added to qualify the primary system - what many people commonly refer to as psyches. When such an announcement is made, I think we are both saying it may be regulated. Regulation of it may include prohibition. So if you say my One Spade bid is normally 11+ HCP and five or more Spades but from time to time I make it on even 0 HCP - and maybe not having a Spade suit - that partnership understanding about the weak version may be prohibited under Law 40D. Or for that matter it may be regarded as Brown Sticker and prohibited in certain events. The WBF does it, so it must be legitimate. When something may be regulated the SO may prescribe whatever it wishes about frequency. It may say that even if you only do it three times a year, if you announce this as a partnership understanding we forbid it. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 09:44:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6NNgMO18465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:42:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6NNgHt18461 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:42:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.130]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000723234639.BLAG4822942.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:46:39 +1200 Message-ID: <002801bff4ff$f6ba3720$826860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> <397AD6AA.B863E552@village.uunet.be> <002101bff4f5$b8e14880$955608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:44:00 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ We are getting closer. But this is not > exactly my position. Most understandings > about 'psyching' initial action are subject > to regulation under 40D and may be > treated like any other illegal agreement. But only if there is an agreement to psych. It must be possible to psych (even repeatedly) with having any partnership understanding or agreement to do so and then such psychs can never be subject to regulation. I know that my wife would never agree to allow me to psych and she tells me so whenever I do (only occasionally) and no doubt she would very vocally tell an appeal committee or director that she never agreed that we(me) would psych and would be most offended (as I believe she should be) if the committee or director then ruled that we in fact did have an agreement. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 10:25:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6O0OI318493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:24:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6O0ODt18489 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:24:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.252]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000724002837.BWXR4822942.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:28:37 +1200 Message-ID: <003e01bff505$d39bade0$826860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> <002001bff4f5$b7ff7400$955608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:25:27 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Applying the power to regulate partnership understandings > providing for initial action on hands a King or more below average > strength. Where there is such a regulation the bid may be > cancelled if it is considered there is a PU. There is not merely > redress for damage. It is a 40D situation and in the discretion > of the SO regulation may provide for the bid to be cancelled. Like a broken record - but only if the agreement for the opening is conventional or made on a hand of a king or more below average strength. One cannot legally make a regulation under L40D that if you psyche based on a CPU then the bid is cancelled as a psych may be non-conventional and made with a hand of sufficient strength for L40D to not apply. > +=+ ~ > Grattan ~ > Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 11:26:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6O1OwL18521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:24:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe44.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6O1Ont18517 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:29:03 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [194.222.6.72] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] International Bridge Laws Forum Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:29:06 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2000 01:29:03.0946 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D5972A0:01BFF50E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If oyu would like to make some helpful comments on either [1] the Rule of Coincidence or [2] Psyches: banned 1st/2nd or [3] Frivolous psyching please add your commments to this forum. Go to http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rulings.htm and click on the button. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Reply to hotmail but copy to blakjak please http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 14:28:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6O4RVq18592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:27:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6O4RIt18588 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22599 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2000 04:29:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.0.165) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 04:29:42 -0000 Message-ID: <397BC6D6.52B058D5@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:32:22 +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: [BLML] D-BLML list - the clever friends - July 2000 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member Here is the 22th 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) Helen Thompson - Rex,Sheeba, Cobber (3) Alain Gottcheiner - Gottchie (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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 17:41:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6O7e2g18667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:40:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6O7dst18663 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.35] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GcuC-000C6a-00; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:44:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001301bff543$503aada0$235408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" , "Jac Fuchs" References: <004001bff4e5$3fd6e7c0$29ecf1c3@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Convention Booklet Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:45:55 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:33 PM Subject: [BLML] WBF Convention Booklet > I have tried to find the text of the WBF Convention Booklet online, but I > have failed. > Can someone please tell me where to find it ? > Also, I would like to know when it has last been updated. > > I hope you do believe I did try David's site, but I may have done it too > superficially, so if the text is to be found there after all, be sure to > blame me, and not him ... > > Thanks, > > Jac > (Jac Fuchs) > +=+ Go to http://bridge.ecats.co.uk and click on Championships The booklet is incorporated in the 'How to complete the Convention Card' section. When I printed it out it took 77 sheets of paper to do so. I read it through to see whether there is anything that needs updating and reported to anna that I did not think so. Because of the way it is done it is fine for use in completing a CC but a little tedious if you only want to look up a particular convention. I have given Anna a statement about multi which John Wignall has approved. The site is the official WBF one for communicating information about Maastricht; it has the Conditions of Contest and, if I understand correctly, all the CCs that have been registered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 18:19:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6O8J8318694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:19:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6O8Ixt18690; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:19:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.62] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GdVz-000CzA-00; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bff548$c47add20$3e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: Subject: [BLML] WBF Regulation: Psyches Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:19:02 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott I said I would copy the WBF regulation dealing > with psyches based upon an announced PU. > > It reads > > " Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the > Laws of Duplicate Contract 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 Cards and Supplementary Sheets. In > other words the psychics should be made > randomly but any understandings about them > should be disclosed. > > Where partnerships have agreements that psychic > bids are expected or are likely in specific situations > or where the psychics are protected by System > then a convention has developed. Such psychic > understandings are classified as Brown Sticker and > are therefore forbidden in certain events. The type > of agreement referred to, for example, is where, > third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player > is expected to open the bidding on anything at all. " > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > If I have a comment to make it is that the regulation > requires no defensive shield such as the first > paragraph constitutes, and that the difference > between a 'developed partnership understanding' > and a 'convention' is unreal. The regulation is > founded on Law 40D and it should simply say 'we > will allow THIS, subject to conditions, but THAT is > Brown Sticker'. And, of course, making them Brown > Sticker does not exactly match the aim in > the final sentence of the first paragraph. In > that sentence the intention is slightly misstated. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > There is an fuzziness of sorts since the Systems > Policy declares to be HUM a partnership > agreement that an opening bid at the one level > may be made with values a King or more below > average strength. That would seem to describe > accurately the example given of a Brown Sticker > psychic. We must leave the Directors, the > Systems Committee and the Appeals Committee > to search out the true nature of the beast. My > personal thought is that what is probably > intended is that an opening bid made as a > psyche* (where the primary meaning is up to > strength) should be Brown Sticker, not HUM, > the yellow status applying only where the primary > meaning shows such a hand. > > [The quoted material is all taken from the General > Conditions of Contest applying in Maastricht.] > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* for those who like to consider the 'psyche' made with partnership understanding, so announced, as part of partnership method - which would be good if we could get all references alike - please understand 'psyche' in the above to refer to the secondary or alternative possibility of the call. ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 24 20:13:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OACao18766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:12:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from omicron.comarch.pl (postfix@omicron.comarch.pl [195.116.125.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OACTt18762 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:12:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (unknown [10.10.2.50]) by omicron.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7649A1768C; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:15:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397C1764.F10F892@comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:16:04 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities References: <200007211542.IAA16832@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: Gordon Bower > > > I don't believe *at the time he made the 1S call*, offender was attempting > > > to penalize the as-yet-unmentioned diamonds, there is no redress. > > > > Right. Seems obvious. How could a player looking at a goodish 5-5 > > (at least enough to open) possibly think it would make sense to bar > > partner? > > > > > This > > > would, of course, entage the non-offending opener, and I would have to > > > agree it doesn't seem fair. > > > > I don't see why it seems unfair or why a player should be "entaged" or > > even angry. Annoyed or irritated, sure; it's always bad luck when the > > opponents do something silly that happens to work. But it isn't rare > > or unfair. Most of us have learned to laugh when it happens. We've > > all had lots of practice, alas. > > Certainly, it's bad luck if someone does something silly that happens > to work out. This is also the case after irregularities. If I open > 1NT when it's my partner's turn, barring my partner for the entire > auction, and I decide to try opening 3NT, maybe it will be a > deficient-HCP contract that we never would have bid but that happens > to make. That's bad luck. > > This situation seems somewhat different, though. The irregularity has > put the offender in a position to gain advantage by giving him a call > (i.e. a penalty double) that he would not have had if the irregularity > had not occurred. Even if the contract had not been played there > doubled, the offender still has gotten the opportunity to tell his > partner that he has good diamonds, which may be useful (and apparently > authorized) information on defense. If I were the NO in this > situation, I'd feel that since the opponents' irregularity opened a > door for them that would have been shut otherwise, I would not be > happy if the Laws let them do this, and I'd feel there was something > wrong with the Laws. This is a bigger problem than just bad luck. > > -- Adam I can see your point, Adam. It would be nice if the Os never gain because of their irregularity. So if after the irregularity the NOs bid a normal game but misplay the hand and the Os get a top - that's OK. If the NOs forget their system and bid a poor slam and go down - that's OK. But if the offending side gets a good score because they were forced to stay out of a good but non-making game - no, the Laws should adjust. The problem with this approach is that it is very hard to codify. Or rather it is possible to codify using the famous notion of 'equity'. This puts us back to the discussion about equity based system and fixed-penalty based system. Contrary to Steve I'd have no problem with the rule that "if you pass OOT your side cannot score better than, say, 20% or -6IMPs on the board. That would guarantee that the Os can never gain by committing an irregularity. A Law based solely on equity would work perfectly in theory and poorly in practice as most of the equity-based laws, the claim law being an example. The current law on BOOT is a "middle-of-the-road" law. Well, not so "middle". It is a "mechanical" law that indeed offers some leeway for the Os to get an excellent score in a fashion that without the irregularity is unavailable. I can't say I'm very happy with that as normally I'm not happy with the "middle-of-the-road" solutions. But there is nothing the wording of L23 that would allow the TD to adjust only because his sense of equity tells him to. As other I think that the OBOOTer could _not_ have known at the time of his infraction so the result stands. -- *********************************************************************** - 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 01:49:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OFmZm18934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:48:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OFmSt18930 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA10207 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06158 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:52:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007241552.LAA06158@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Doubles after irregularities X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Konrad Ciborowski > Contrary to Steve I'd have no problem with the rule that "if you > pass OOT your side cannot score better than, say, 20% or -6IMPs on > the board. This is a matter of taste. Personally, if I'm playing for 20% at best, I'd just as soon take a zero and get on to the next board, but it's easy to see that not everyone would agree. If it were 50% instead of 20%, I'd have a different opinion. But clearly this is a matter of personal likes and dislikes. > A Law based solely on equity would work perfectly in theory Yes. I thought about this just after my previous message. Make the original pass or bid OOT UI, and go back to the correct place in the auction. No problem in theory. > and poorly in practice as most of the equity-based laws, Or at least it would be cumbersome to apply and would lead to controversy and recrimination. > the claim law being an example. I'm not sure I would have picked the same example, but the point is certainly made. > The current law on BOOT is a "middle-of-the-road" law. Well, not > so "middle". It is a "mechanical" law that indeed offers some > leeway for the Os to get an excellent score in a fashion that > without the irregularity is unavailable. Yes, exactly. 98% of the time it's mechanical; 1% of the time L72B1 (an equity law) will apply, and another 1% there will be a L16 adjustment. And as with almost all the mechanical laws, once in awhile the OS will receive a windfall. What we need is a law that is simple to apply and avoids benefit to the OS yet gives them something to play for. If it were obvious how to do that, I bet it would already have been in the laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 03:45:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OHj4B19006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:45:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OHivt19002 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:44:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive49a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.42]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA31346 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:54:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: ton kooijman >Grattan answered somewhere in our never ending discussion about psyches the >following: (GE)>> Well, forget all the arguments of the past weeks. >>Let us take a cool look at where we are. > (TK)>A good question, I don't have the slightest idea. > I suspect the tigres will be nearly butter by now. (GE)>First, I do >>agree that whatever we do must be for the sake of >>the game. With Edgar departed we are no longer >>minded to allow any single personal agenda to be >>driven through. > > >In a personal reaction I have asked Grattan to stop his never ending >accusations against Edgar Kaplan. He apparently doesn't, which is his poor >right. But it might have been better to show this brave attitude within the >LC chaired by Edgar, using the help of other members to avoid not supported >decisions. My personal experience with Edgar is that he almost always was >willing to listen to and to accept good arguments. May be there was a >problem there? Anyway I want to take distance from these attacks, being >unfair and too easy for more than one reason. > Perhaps I am a minority of one, but I have not noticed Grattan "attacking" EK. I think he may have a valid point in noting the power of the Kaplan personality in causing members of the Laws Committee to bend toward, if not to his will at times. You must understand that there was considerable jingoesque suspicion of having laws made for the US by a European based committee. Was there some confusion of new world desires for the game and Kaplan's own? If so, I am confident that such disparity did not exist in Kaplan's mind, that he was doing what he thought right for his zone and for the game in general. I suspect similar high motives were there for you and for Grattan. I was privileged to know EK only through brief correspondence, and of couse through his excellent and prolific writings. You enjoyed meeting with him face to face. But I suspect that he was not only reasonable, but a hard bargainer for his agenda. I think what Grattan may be saying is that NOW there is no one totally dominant personality on the WBFLC. One who looms as large as a Kaplan does not come along every day. That is no slight to any of you...only a compliment to a fine man whom all agree made major contributions to bridge. Freed from the perceived necessity to conform to his agenda, the members of the committee may now work toward more clarity and international uniformity in the future development of the laws. Forgive me if I misplace words in your mouth, Grattan, but from our correspondence and the list I doubt strongly that you are trying to attack or defame EK in any way, but only to look toward an inclusive future in the improvement of the laws. I hope that I have read you correctly. Craig Senior -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 04:03:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OI3S919033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:03:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6OI3Ft19023 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 57962 invoked for bounce); 24 Jul 2000 18:07:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.195) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 18:07:20 -0000 Message-ID: <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> Subject: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:08:27 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David J. Grabiner" wrote: > At 04:31 PM 7/16/00 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > >Come to think of it, isn't there already a WBF case on point? I'm > >remembering a pair who filed a wrong convention card at one of the > >world championships. My memory is vague, but I think they weren't > >arriving in time and asked someone else to file the card for them. But > >somehow the card left off some kind of two-suited bid or something, but > >the pair proceeded to use the bid anyway. The AC decision was that > >_use_ of the bid was illegal, and in fact the score was adjusted not > >only for the deal under appeal but also for use on a prior occasion, > >and I think there was also a PP. Anyway, it was a very harsh > >decision. Perhaps someone with a better memory can give a proper > >citation and supply details. > > I have the 1994 Albuquerque casebook,; > this is Case 57. One of the Polish > pairs had a convention card which > did not arrive, and the new card was > filled out "in a hurry by a third party". > The unregistered convention was > a 1NT bid on K853 54 AQJ987 2 > over a 1H opening. This two suited 1NT overcall is a very popular convention in continental Europe. > The TD ruled 3 IMPs to > the non-offenders on this board, > and retroactively awarded 3 IMPs to the > opponents when this convention was used > on a previous board. The TD asked > the AC to review the facts. > > The AC ruling: "The Committee noted that the pair involved were extermemly > experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. > They should not have been excused > for the grave breach of the conditions of > contest. This pair had to play the methods on the convention card > officially registered. They were barred from playing the final segment of > the semifinal of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of three IMPs to > North-South of each of the two boards was confirmed." > > This is unusually harsh wording for an AC; I would normally expect to see > it only for frivolous appeals. > Suspension for 16 boards is a severe penalty. I agree. > The only panelist to comment in detail > on the ruling was Ton Kooijman, who > made the usual point that we make > in such cases on BLBL: there should be an > adjustment if there was damage, not an automatic +3 IMPs for the > non-offenders. Yep. Rosenberg wrote: I don't like anything about this case. First, I believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation of the rules. Second, I think the E/W pair involved was unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was on a vendetta against them. [See also Ton Kooijman's comments in the closing comments section, and in case 43.] Grattan was the scribe on that decision, but it is probably too long ago to remember any details. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 04:03:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OI3Ti19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6OI3Ft19022 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 57946 invoked for bounce); 24 Jul 2000 18:07:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.195) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 18:07:19 -0000 Message-ID: <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:07:39 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > From: Steve Willner > To: > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 7:52 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > There is no 'rule' The CoP has expressed a view as to > > > what constitutes a partnership understanding, namely > > > that "the partner of the player who psyches has a > > > heightened awareness that in the given situation the > > > call may be psychic". > > > > I don't think anyone disagrees with this, as long as we agree that > > 'partnership understanding' is _what must be disclosed_. _How_ it must > > be disclosed is, of course, up to the SO. If the SO is so stupid as to > > say "not at all," that doesn't make a psychic tendency illegal any more > > than it makes a particular cue bidding method illegal. > > > > > because the offence occurs > > > before there is any fielding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > And this is what worries many of us (and what I've been trying to dig > > out without success). L40E seems to suggest a distinction between _what > > must be disclosed_ on the one hand and system or method on the other. > > It is the latter that can be regulated, but not everything that is > > disclosed is necessarily system, is it? > > > +=+ 'System' becomes a difficult word here. The laws > refer to the requirement for disclosure of 'partnership > understandings'. The use of various almost-synonyms like "system", "partnership understanding", "partnership agreement" probably need some clarification in the next revision of the laws. > It is not quite accurate that 'how' an > understanding is to be disclosed is up to the SO alone. > What I mean here is that Law 40E establishes a > power for an SO to 'prescribe a convention card *on > which partners are to list their conventions and other > agreements*'. The law book defines the use of the CC > to that extent if one is prescribed. If I understand > the language the law says that if there is a CC and > you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, the CC > should list it. There exists a problem here: No CC I have ever seen provides the necessary space to list more than the most basic general agreements of a well-established partnership. There is now way hundreds of pages of agreements can be squeezed into the 2 to 6 pages of a CC. > What else may be required is up to the > SO. Where a CC is required I do not agree it can > ever be said that the SO has not provided the means > for prior announcement of an understanding, whether > in regard to psyches or to the style of cue bidding. +=+ Example agreement, which covers just one aspect of a completely natural system: Over 1C, an overcall of 2D shows opening bid strength, whereas an overcall of 1S can be made on as little as 8 HCP and a good suit. Over 1D, 1H and 2C show about at least 10 HCP, whereas 1S can be made on as little as 9 HCP and a good suit. Over 1H, 1S shows at least 10 HCP, and 2C and 2D promise 11 HCP. The general principle is that overcalls are more aggressive if they make life difficult for the opponents. You don't like it if the bidding goes 1C 1S X 2S ???, whereas a 1D overcall over 1C can actually help your side. IMHO it is obvious that such detailed information, even though it is important and will be used on every other hand, cannot be provided on a CC. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 04:03:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OI3Xl19035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:03:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6OI3Ft19021 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 57944 invoked for bounce); 24 Jul 2000 18:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.195) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 24 Jul 2000 18:07:18 -0000 Message-ID: <013e01bff59a$32ce1ac0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:04:00 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Todd Zimnoch" wrote: > >From: Herman De Wael > > > But the decision to ban that bid is not based on whether > > > or not it is a psych. Some bids may be both destructive > > > and psyches, but the ability to cope is a problem related > > > to destructive bids and not psyches. > > > >If it is a psyche, it cannot be banned. > > This is not true. There are a great many banned psyches. As far as > destructiveness, open 4S with a spade void. How often will you be allowed > to get away with that? and also wrote: > It's a destructive bid. It's not allowed to be part of your system. A convention like "4D = either weak with long, broken diamonds or AKQxxxx in S and a side A, or better" is perfectly legal where I play. Please leave your very limited ACBL PoV. Many conventions and treatments illegal in ACBLand are perfectly legal at almost all levels in various other countries. > >But that was not the point. > >You were talking about UI. > >CPU's are not UI. > > Then CPU's are AI? CPUs are AI. The failure to disclose the partnership understanding is a severe violation of law (and the understanding itself might violate some regulations), but the information itself is authorized. Information about partnership understandings is not extraneous. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 04:26:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OIQim19073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:26:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OIQct19069 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:26:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-129.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.129]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9631536B40; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:31:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 20:24:50 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >So I give in, and I agree that SO's really do have the power >to ban psyches, even if you do them for the very first >time. This seems to be what a majority of lower bridge >players actually seem to want, so it must be good for the >game as well. Well, I don't. Lower bridge players want to wave there own penaltycards, don't want claims from their opponents (and are consistent here, because they never claim themselves either), don't want to wait for the 'stop' seconds, what kind of argument is this? If S.O. have the power to ban psyches, they also have the power to ban 1NT-openings and to introduce a sixth suit in the bidding, or to declare clubs higher than spades. I am talking about Christmas sessions so. That sounds acceptable. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 04:39:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OIdLm19087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:39:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OIdGt19083 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:39:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP043.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.155]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27389 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200007241342150010.05EE5123@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:42:15 -0500 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > A 4S opening on a long spade suit is not (purely) >> > destructive. It's pre-emptive. >> >>Well define destructive then : I'm using as definition : "a >>call which prevents opponents from reaching their optimum >>contract in some comfort, without having to gamble". Under >>that definition, 4Sp is a destructive opening. You skipped over "obstructive". Taking up bidding room is legitimate in this game. The line between "obstructive" and "destructive" awaits more precise definition, but a natural 4S opening is hardly "destructive". Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 05:40:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OJdRk19117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:39:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OJdLt19113 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:39:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OJhLK00724; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:43:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <013e01bff59a$32ce1ac0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:40:41 -0400 To: "Thomas Dehn" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 8:04 PM +0200 7/24/00, Thomas Dehn wrote: >"Todd Zimnoch" wrote: >> >But that was not the point. >> >You were talking about UI. >> >CPU's are not UI. >> >> Then CPU's are AI? > >CPUs are AI. The failure to disclose the partnership >understanding is a severe violation of law (and the understanding >itself might violate some regulations), but the information >itself is authorized. Information about partnership >understandings is not extraneous. This is where the Rule of Coincidence comes in. It allows an adjustment if good players make compensating actions. If you do not have, or cannot apply, the Rule of Coincidence, then a result from a CPU must stand unless the opponents were damaged by failure to disclose, or the CPU would itself be illegal (such as a fielded psyche). For example, suppose that the auction goes (no alerts): S W N E 1C X 1H X P 1S P 2S East is 4-1-4-4, and West has a normal takeout double. In the ACBL, all non-penalty doubles when partner has acted are alertable, excpet for the usual Negative Double. E-W thus have a CPU that East's double is takeout. The Rule of Coincidence is unlikely to be applied here; the TD will probably assume that E-W actually have this (fairly common) agreement and either forgot to alert it or don't know that it is alertable. Therefore, the result in 2S stands, unless the failure to alert damaged N-S. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 06:51:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OKnMN19155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:49:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OKnGt19151 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:49:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id u.6e.170d29f (7543); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:53:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <6e.170d29f.26ae06bf@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:53:19 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: gester@globalnet.co.uk, joanandron@worldnet.att.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/24/00 1:51:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > In a personal reaction I have asked Grattan to stop his never ending > >accusations against Edgar Kaplan. He apparently doesn't, which is his poor > >right. But it might have been better to show this brave attitude within the > >LC chaired by Edgar, using the help of other members to avoid not supported > >decisions. My personal experience with Edgar is that he almost always was > >willing to listen to and to accept good arguments. May be there was a > >problem there? Anyway I want to take distance from these attacks, being > >unfair and too easy for more than one reason. > > > Perhaps I am a minority of one, but I have not noticed Grattan > "attacking" EK. I think he may have a valid point in noting the power of the > Kaplan personality in causing members of the Laws Committee to bend toward, > if not to his will at times. You must understand that there was considerable > jingoesque suspicion of having laws made for the US by a European based > committee. Was there some confusion of new world desires for the game and > Kaplan's own? If so, I am confident that such disparity did not exist in > Kaplan's mind, that he was doing what he thought right for his zone and for > the game in general. I suspect similar high motives were there for you and > for Grattan. > > I was privileged to know EK only through brief correspondence, and of > couse through his excellent and prolific writings. You enjoyed meeting with > him face to face. But I suspect that he was not only reasonable, but a hard > bargainer for his agenda. I think what Grattan may be saying is that NOW > there is no one totally dominant personality on the WBFLC. One who looms as > large as a Kaplan does not come along every day. That is no slight to any of > you...only a compliment to a fine man whom all agree made major > contributions to bridge. Freed from the perceived necessity to conform to > his agenda, the members of the committee may now work toward more clarity > and international uniformity in the future development of the laws. Forgive > me if I misplace words in your mouth, Grattan, but from our correspondence > and the list I doubt strongly that you are trying to attack or defame EK in > any way, but only to look toward an inclusive future in the improvement of > the laws. I hope that I have read you correctly. > > Craig Senior > > -- Yeah, I gotta comment... can't keep my hands off this any longer. You are not alone in understanding that there is no attack on Kaplan by Grattan or for that matter by anyone on the BLML. I count myself amongst those friends of Edgar's who had major disagreements with him, and who greatly respected his sagacity, wisdom, and disarming wit, not to mention his encylopedic knowledge of good wines. Yet, Edgar was not above making sure that the feathers in his own bed were of the finest, most reliable, and politically acceptable quality . We were often on the same side where he preached restraint to me in crusading because it meant personal survival. He was the antithesis of Don Quixote -- no tilting at windmills for him. He frequently reminded me that it was more productive to fight from the inside, than to be on the outside looking in. His ability to keep some suspicious, bigoted, powerful, and vocal members of Zones 1 and 2 from destroying the WBF in the last few years of his life is a major achievement. Craig is right that there is no replacement for him at this time. Those who would see themselves in that light need to avail themselves of major introspection. Bull-headed opposition from a righteous stance would not have given Edgar the ability to cajole, end-run, and retain his position in the ACBLLC. That, my friends, would have been a loss beyond measure. I was privy to many LC meetings over the last 25 years, where, had there been votes taken, Edgar would have been sacked -- so he ran it by consensus. We are faced with the need for major revisions to our Laws in the next few years. To make that a productive effort and keep organized bridge from dying out we need an open mind and a carefully attuned ear to where the players want this game to go. I have been preaching for a long time that we need to satisy the desires of distinct groups of those whose dedications to bridge have highly differing bases. If bridge is to survive the onslaughts of modern communications, perfessional employment, Olympic Status, social and value differences -- not to mention nationalistic tribalism in today's resurgent forms -- we must face the fact that there are different games played in the Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup, the high level games in the major centers like New York (plug for my hometown), and the local duplicate in Timbukto or Chengdu. We play sandlot baseball, inner cities stickball (anybody else out there that old?), American and National League Rules, highschool ball, Little League ball, and even softball. Differing rules, but the game is essentially the same. What Edgar accomplished by leaving the Laws flexible and vague for interpretation needs now to be accomplished by lucid, complete, and well written guidance. Right now, we need to know what that guidance should be, and if Edgar sometimes bears the brunt of these arguments, I'm sure he would be glad to puff on his pipe, and tear up the opposition with irony, sarcasm and wit. He was a man for his times in international bridge but the times are changing. To attribute discussions on subjects that need revision as an an "attack" on Edgar is not only unfair, but nearsighted to say the least. Kojak -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 08:02:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6OM2DU19192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:02:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6OM26t19188 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:02:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054mdi.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.178]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29357 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000724180611.01384798@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:06:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't see any reason to adust. If South had been correctly informed, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have bid 4H, even without his confirmation on this point. Did the misunderstanding on EW's part make it harder for NS to find a major suit game? Very likely. But did the MI contribute to this per se? I think not. BTW, as David has pointed out frequently in the past, this type of MI problem also raises UI issues, and there certainly one is here. However, I do not find that passing 3H doubled is a LA for West, so no adjustment on that score either. Mike Dennis At 12:51 AM 7/21/2000 +0100, David S wrote: > > AQxx W N E S > N/N-S Jxx > KJT9 1N P 2D 1# > Ax 3C 2# P 3H X > xxx xxx 4C P P X > x Q9xx AP > Ax Q8xxx > KQT9xxx xx 1# Game-forcing Stayman > KJTx 2# Natural per system > Result AKTxx > 4C*-2 xx > NS+500 Jx > > East alerted West's 3C and described it as clubs and hearts. > > OK, so how do you adjust? 4H or 4S can score any number of tricks >between nine and twelve. > > BTW, this is before August 1st, so L12C3 is not enabled for hte >Director - it was in England. > > You might ask South how he has been damaged. "I don't know," he says >helpfully, "but I would not have bid 4H if 4C comes round to me even if >correctly informed." > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum >Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 09:46:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6ONkCw19265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:46:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6ONk0t19256 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:46:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.223] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Grz8-000CeO-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:50:10 +0100 Message-ID: <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:51:41 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches > > > Perhaps I am a minority of one, but I have not noticed Grattan > "attacking" EK. I think he may have a valid point in noting the power of the > Kaplan personality in causing members of the Laws Committee to bend toward, > if not to his will at times. You must understand that there was considerable > jingoesque suspicion of having laws made for the US by a European based > committee. Was there some confusion of new world desires for the game and > Kaplan's own? If so, I am confident that such disparity did not exist in > Kaplan's mind, that he was doing what he thought right for his zone and for > the game in general. I suspect similar high motives were there for you and > for Grattan. > > I was privileged to know EK only through brief correspondence, and of > couse through his excellent and prolific writings. You enjoyed meeting with > him face to face. But I suspect that he was not only reasonable, but a hard > bargainer for his agenda. I think what Grattan may be saying is that NOW > there is no one totally dominant personality on the WBFLC. One who looms as > large as a Kaplan does not come along every day. That is no slight to any of > you...only a compliment to a fine man whom all agree made major > contributions to bridge. Freed from the perceived necessity to conform to > his agenda, the members of the committee may now work toward more clarity > and international uniformity in the future development of the laws. Forgive > me if I misplace words in your mouth, Grattan, but from our correspondence > and the list I doubt strongly that you are trying to attack or defame EK in > any way, but only to look toward an inclusive future in the improvement of > the laws. I hope that I have read you correctly. > > Craig Senior +=+ Thank you for the perception. I worked for a lot of years in very close liaison with EK, as the Vice Chairman of 'his' WBFLC. In doing so I was fully conscious of an outstanding personality and I liked the man in spite of his manipulative style. (I have known him lose a vote 11-1 and still get what he wanted into a law.) Like most men of real stature he did have some large flaws*, as no doubt have the lesser mortals who remain. I struggled very hard with him over some things, but I knew that if he was determined to have a thing we would eventually get it! What I have understood from my current colleagues on the committee is that they now want to avoid things happening over which they have little control; they want decisions made in committee to hold good and they do not want law manufactured on the hoof. (Edgar did have the capacity to publish an interpretation of the law in his magazine, which then carried authority even though it had not come near the WBFLC.) That is why ton, kojak, and I are all three rather anxious to distinguish our personal views from the established views of the committee - we are the most visible ones and it is our heads that will roll if we do not keep the separation clear. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 09:46:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6ONkAP19264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:46:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6ONjvt19250 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.223] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Grz7-000CeO-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:50:09 +0100 Message-ID: <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Thomas Dehn" References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:39:34 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:08 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try > > Grattan was the scribe on that decision, but it is probably > too long ago to remember any details. > > > Thomas +=+ Oh ye of little faith! I was only reading the book yesterday (Monday) - trawling for potential cases for the WBF 'jurisprudence'. I might even have the appeal form somewhere, with my notes. When I get to 'work' on Tuesday I will open up a box file or two and see what falls out. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 09:46:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6ONk8919263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:46:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6ONjst19245 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:45:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.223] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Grz3-000CeO-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:50:05 +0100 Message-ID: <009d01bff5ca$443cd6e0$df5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:57:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > It is not quite accurate that 'how' an > > understanding is to be disclosed is up to the SO alone. > > What I mean here is that Law 40E establishes a > > power for an SO to 'prescribe a convention card *on > > which partners are to list their conventions and other > > agreements*'. The law book defines the use of the CC > > to that extent if one is prescribed. If I understand > > the language the law says that if there is a CC and > > you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, the CC > > should list it. > > There exists a problem here: No CC I have ever seen > provides the necessary space to list more > than the most basic general agreements of a > well-established partnership. There is now way > hundreds of pages of agreements can be squeezed > into the 2 to 6 pages of a CC. > +=+ My personal opinion is that the need would be served by a brief statement in the area of the card apportioned to things opponents 'need to know', or to 'special agreements'. There could be some amplification if there is room on the card, but otherwise at least give opponents opportunity to enquire before you start. It is up to the SO, I think, to clarify how much a player is expected to enter in detail on the CC. In the 1980's leading opinion in the WBF was minded to limit the complexity of players' systems by leaving them short of space to disclose on the CC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 09:46:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6ONk8M19262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:46:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6ONjrt19244 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:45:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.223] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Grz1-000CeO-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:50:03 +0100 Message-ID: <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "ton kooijman" References: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:44:26 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies > >So I give in, and I agree that SO's really do have the power > >to ban psyches, even if you do them for the very first > >time. This seems to be what a majority of lower bridge > >players actually seem to want, so it must be good for the > >game as well. > > > Well, I don't. > > Lower bridge players want to wave there own penaltycards, don't want claims > from their opponents (and are consistent here, because they never claim > themselves either), don't want to wait for the 'stop' seconds, what kind of > argument is this? > > If S.O. have the power to ban psyches, they also have the power to ban > 1NT-openings and to introduce a sixth suit in the bidding, or to declare > clubs higher than spades. I am talking about Christmas sessions so. That > sounds acceptable. > > ton > +=+ The position that I see is this: 1. A psyche is legal if it is a psyche of a natural bid made without partnership understanding 2. A psyche of a conventional bid made without partnership understanding is legal unless there is a regulation under 40D to forbid it. An example of such a regulation currently is the English regulation forbidding psyches of a game forcing or nearly game forcing artificial opening. 3. A psyche of any kind of bid which is made with a partnership understanding that is not announced is illegal under the laws and may be dealt with by the Director following the guidance given to him by the SO or Regulating Authority. This may be simply to adjust scores for damage under 40C; or it may extend to a penalty, like any other illegal bid. A penalty may be draconian, that is a matter for the Director, the AC, and the SO. Damage would include getting a good result via the illegal bid when the result might not be achieved using legal methods. 4.An understanding to psyche must be announced - indeed it should appear on the convention card according to Law 80E. When such an understanding is disclosed it is subject to regulation, not under 40C (unless the disclosure is faulty) but under 40D if it has a conventional meaning or if it allows of initial action on a hand a K or more less than average strength. Law 40D allows the SO (RA) to prohibit the understanding, a power that the WBF and others use - for example, certain classes of psyche are banned in Category 3 events, for which there would be no legal authority were it not for Law 40D. (Ton likes to think of these announced methods as part of system, and so indeed do I, but it requires some rewording of regulations and greater precision in the way these subjects are expressed before this aim can be truly achieved). There is no obligation to prohibit the understandings, the SO has discretion to allow them, or to allow them with conditions. 5. The words 'agreement' and understanding' in partnerships are used interchangeably; it would be helpful to tighten up this looseness and refer only to 'partnership understandings', but in the meantime it should be understood, in my opinion, that these terms are synonymous. We treat them as being so. 6. My other observation would be that in practice when we discuss 'psychic' opening bids we are thinking largely of bids that are made on very weak hands. In the later stages of the auction psyches sometimes occur as tactical bids on good hands. We might do well to express our regulations by reference to the wording of Law 40D, not using the words 'psyche' and 'psychic' at all since these terms wriggle like eels in the hands of the draftsman - as does also 'convention'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 10:05:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P04jk19318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:04:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P04dt19314 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:04:40 +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 13GsHB-000CnH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:08:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:58:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit>, Thomas Dehn writes snip Grattan wrote: > >The use of various almost-synonyms like >"system", "partnership understanding", >"partnership agreement" probably need some clarification >in the next revision of the laws. > H H OOO OOO RRRR A Y Y ! H H O O O O R R A A Y Y ! HHHHH O O O O RRRR A A Y ! H H O O O O R R AAAAA Y ! H H OOO OOO R R A A Y ! My spell-checker suggests Gratin for Grattan. Lightly toasted ... How appropriate :)) -- 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 10:12:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P0C4319334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:12:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P0Bwt19330 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.168] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GsOH-000CvP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:16:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bff5cd$e8a6a780$a85608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] WBF Convention Booklet Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:17:58 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > +=+ More precise statement how to find it. > > Go to http://bridge.ecats.co.uk > Go to Documents > Then go to CCE Programs and information > Then go to Guide to Completion > > Anna tells me she will put the multi statement > up shortly. Also that the CCs are only for > teams participating. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 10:33:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P0XkE19349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:33:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P0Xbt19345 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:33:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13GsjB-0001PV-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:37:46 +0100 Message-ID: <8MiK3+AXCOf5EwC1@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:34:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer> <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > That is why ton, kojak, >and I are all three rather anxious to distinguish >our personal views from the established views >of the committee - we are the most visible >ones and it is our heads that will roll if we >do not keep the separation clear. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It would be a pity to shoot the messenger or cause him to be shot ... one would then have no line of communication. Stick with us boys, even if the ride is a bit rough. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 15:22:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P5LNV19493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:21:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P5LGt19489 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:21:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.209] (d185fc9d1.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.209]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA15761 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:15:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Convention cards {was: appeals/psyches} Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Thomas Dehn" wrote: >There exists a problem here: No CC I have ever seen >provides the necessary space to list more >than the most basic general agreements of a >well-established partnership. There is now way >hundreds of pages of agreements can be squeezed >into the 2 to 6 pages of a CC. This is especially true of the ACBL card, whose design is, well, I could probably come up with a worse one, but I'd have to work at it. :-) Matt Granovetter, in one of his books (Bridge Advantages '96, I think) proposed a booklet rather than a card, each page of which consists of a table showing all the possible calls over the "launch pad", that being the call which gives rise to the table of possible responses. He suggested such a booklet would have a couple dozen pages, IIRC. He seemed to think this is the wave of the future, but I dunno. First, it seems it might take a while to look things up in one these booklets, and second, if we (at least here in the ACBL) can't get players to fill out a simple CC, how the heck are we gonna get 'em to complete a 24 page _book_? 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/AwUBOX0kwr2UW3au93vOEQIeiACePDb+WEu4+NgA2T3PtwhJ7CjHG3MAoJd1 qHvQ3yaYtahK2l/b5JcQcoSw =/iu4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 15:31:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P5VA319505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:31:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P5V3t19501 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:31:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.209] (d185fc9d1.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.209]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03577 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> References: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman> <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 01:28:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Grattan Endicott" writes: >A psyche of any kind of bid which is made >with a partnership understanding that is not >announced is illegal under the laws and may be >dealt with by the Director following the >guidance given to him by the SO or Regulating >Authority My understanding, which may well be flawed, is that the bid in this situation is illegal because there is a concealed partnership understanding. Whether the bid is a psyche or not is, it seems to me, irrelevant. That being the case, I don't see how the penalty for making such a bid should be any more draconian because the bid is a psyche (or, for that matter, less draconian because it is not). Am I missing something? 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/AwUBOX0nEL2UW3au93vOEQKmRgCg+ER8rYFvmY80lfIX3nTjo9NTdqsAoPkL fXGgjQKmZ6KkiaihFyLnPy42 =2Aak -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 17:30:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P7UJ519567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:30:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P7U7t19555 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:30:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.114] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GzEG-000GhY-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:34:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bff60b$1ce66e80$725608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu><004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona><013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention cards {was: appeals/psyches} Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:31:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > Matt Granovetter, in one of his books (Bridge Advantages '96, I > think) proposed a booklet rather than a card, each page of which > consists of a table showing all the possible calls over the "launch > pad", that being the call which gives rise to the table of possible > responses. He suggested such a booklet would have a couple dozen > pages, IIRC. He seemed to think this is the wave of the future, but I > dunno. First, it seems it might take a while to look things up in one > these booklets, and second, if we (at least here in the ACBL) can't > get players to fill out a simple CC, how the heck are we gonna get > 'em to complete a 24 page _book_? > +=+ Oh, come, before long we will each be provided with our screen and keyboard alongside us. Opponents will simply hand us their diskettes with every [? :-)) ] situation listed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 17:30:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P7UJJ19566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:30:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P7U6t19554 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:30:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.114] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GzEE-000GhY-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:34:15 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bff60b$1c049a00$725608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer><00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> <8MiK3+AXCOf5EwC1@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:05:46 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches > It would be a pity to shoot the messenger or cause him to be shot ... > one would then have no line of communication. Stick with us boys, even > if the ride is a bit rough. cheers john > -- +=+ I think there is more to be learnt from disagreement than from platitudinous uniformity. I do not see a ride as 'rough' just because we do not say 'how right' each minute of the day. We have different personalities, come from differing bridge backgrounds, have gone with the wind, flung roses riotously with the throng, cried for madder music and for stronger wine, so why should we not enjoy the feasting and the dance? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 17:30:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6P7UIT19565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:30:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6P7U5t19552 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:30:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.114] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13GzED-000GhY-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:34:13 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bff60b$1b107600$725608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman><009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:44:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies > My understanding, which may well be flawed, is that the bid in this > situation is illegal because there is a concealed partnership > understanding. Whether the bid is a psyche or not is, it seems to > me, irrelevant. That being the case, I don't see how the penalty for > making such a bid should be any more draconian because the bid is a > psyche (or, for that matter, less draconian because it is not). Am I > missing something? > +=+ I think your understanding is not flawed. I am not advocating Draco, merely observing that the possibilities are in the hands of the regulators who may or may not decide on rigorous measures. I do come across some people in seats of power who incline to flog the illicit psycher. As a personal opinion I share the thought that all illegal bids give equal cause for penalty, the severity of this being something that should depend upon a view of the culpability or intent of the offender. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 21:34:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PBXeY19666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:33:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (uu194-7-1-47.unknown.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PBXXt19662 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:33:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-135.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.135]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA03997 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:37:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397C26F4.205F1B98@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:22:28 +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: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > >Well, it's a call, legal (in the sense of not being > >insufficient), and there's nothing else. > > Partner's experience with you is not a call. It may be based on calls > you have made, but it is not a call. > If partnership experience has now become UI, we should stop this game, because every single board will be scored Av-/Av-. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 23:18:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PDITl19780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:18:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PDIMt19776 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:18:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis87.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.87]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FY900FOL95F94@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:22:29 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:21:41 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: [BLML] NEW Thread: Call of cards from dummy and typical mistakes In-reply-to: <001a01bff60b$1c049a00$725608c3@dodona> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Unverified) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000725145249.00ae5780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer> <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> <8MiK3+AXCOf5EwC1@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e6PDIPt19777 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, there is a point of law where I always felt that the rules here are not fair enough. So I wanted to discuss with you all, if my feelings are shared by others and if there is maybe a way to change the law or at least changing my own interpretation of law. Advanced apologies for my perhaps awful english: LAW 47 C 4 Named or Designated Card (a) Play of Named Card A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play. (b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47 E). The problem goes around the term "inadvertent designation". The typical problem here is a declarer who has a plan in mind about the further tricks and by mistake is in the wrong trick. Example: Ax - xxx - - J109 xx - hearts are trumps (and are drawn). The "plan" is clear. Cash the Spade ace and drop a diamond then ruff a spade and hope the opps will drop a diamond (this is an artificial case; I hope everybody understands my problem a about this). Now declarer says "small spade" because he is temporarily thinking that he alerady cashed the spade Ace. As I read the laws he is not allowed to take back the small spade (I once allowed it and everybody shouted at me; after that I was convinced ;-)))). Now to my remarks here: 1) If my opps would make this sort of mistake I would allow them to take it back without further consulting the TD. May be this is wrong but sometimes I´m a sort of boy scout. What would you do? 2) I think that this interpretation of law isnt good for the game. What do you think? 3) There is a contradiction to the way in which wrong bids are handled. In my mind there is no big difference between the wrong card from the bidding box because I remember my system now and this sort of mistake which is described here. But in bidding there is now this famous "kojiman" rule which allows to withdraw bids in exchange to a minus average. At least this sort of rule should be in this cases available. What do you think? 4) The actual rules are very rare used. In fact, I never had a case where somebody totally inadvertend called a card from dummy and meant sth different. Maybe there are cases with language problems (that reminds me of a case in netherland where my partner wanted to call 6 NT and made than a free finesse for an overtrick and afterwards everyone told him, that he played 7NT because he said "seiven" and not "sess" (all dutch readers may forgive me my "dutch" spell-writing here ;-). This was very funny then (15 years ago); now I´m not even sure if the contract really was 7NT or 6NT... Back to the point: What are your experineces in this cases? Cheers Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 23:24:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PDOk319793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6PDOgt19789 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:24:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa794661 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:21:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-155.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.155]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Whacko-MailRouter V2.9 9/4783214); 25 Jul 2000 23:20:59 Message-ID: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:17:36 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From the current Australian Nationals: Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) i.e. all players are among Australia's best. Dlr S, Nil Vul A84 KJ953 10 Q543 76 K1095 Q10874 A2 7543 KQ986 86 107 QJ32 6 A52 AKJ92 West North East South 1C P 1H Dbl Redbl 2D 4H P P Dbl P P 4NT P 5C All Pass Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. 5C made 11 tricks. The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted to -300 in 4HX. Appellants (NS) claim: "The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, something that would have happened without the question." Decision: The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you think of the appeal? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 23:29:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PDTHr19807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:29:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PDTBt19803 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA13344 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:33:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:33 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ The position that I see is this: > 1. A psyche is legal if it is a psyche of a natural > bid made without partnership understanding agreed. > 2. A psyche of a conventional bid made without > partnership understanding is legal unless there > is a regulation under 40D to forbid it. An > example of such a regulation currently is the > English regulation forbidding psyches of a > game forcing or nearly game forcing artificial > opening. agreed. > 3. A psyche of any kind of bid which is made > with a partnership understanding that is not > announced is illegal under the laws and may be With exceptions. For example if playing against opponents who are known to be competent (or due to the nature of the competition are reasonably expected to be competent) one is always permitted to make "common psyches" (eg Ferdinand's, joke NTs, fake cue-bids etc.) Competent opponents should all be aware of these. Put another way opponents who are unaware of these simple mechanisms can hardly be called competent. Unless he falls foul of later provisos Herman is free to play his 1H against readers of this list since we can reasonably be expected to be aware of the meaning (we are almost certainly more aware than his regular partners!). Once I say that my wife also knows exactly what a HDW1H is (she and I have discussed it) he may play it against her as well. Where the SO mandates that psychic tendencies should not be disclosed on the CC or by other prior announcement* it is appropriate to alert/answer questions rather than "announce". After all many SOs prescribe exactly what should be on the CC and all will recognise that no CC is big enough to show all the agreements of an experienced pair. * I think this is bad regulation but we can live with it. > 4.An understanding to psyche must be > announced - indeed it should appear on the > convention card according to Law 80E. Such an understanding can be required to be disclosed under L80E. It is not obligatory for the SO to require it however. > When such an understanding is disclosed it > is subject to regulation, not under 40C > (unless the disclosure is faulty) but under > 40D if it has a conventional meaning or if it > allows of initial action on a hand a K or > more less than average strength. Here we must recognise the difference between an understanding *to* psyche (probably an agreement) and an understanding *about* psyching tendencies. For example it is possible that a partner of mine might know that "Tim tends to psyche less at high stakes - if he psyches it may involve conventional bids or 1 level bids with fewer than 7HCPs".* He will properly disclose this information, the £/Matchpoint I have in side bets, and (if he knows) whether I consider this a high stake. I can't begin to imagine how this understanding would be regulated, or what form the words would take. * My psyches are not "frivolous", in that I will only make them when I expect a fair degree of up-side - I just can't afford to combine a high variance strategy with high stakes. If not playing for money my psyche frequency will vary upon other criteria but partner could learn these as well. Once we acknowledge that some understandings about psyching are not subject to regulation and that some clearly are we must recognise the existence of a continuum between the two. Steve, Herman and others have put forward some suggestions on the sort of criteria (frequency/ existence of control bids/specificity of understanding/degree to which both players play the same way/etc) which might be used to place a particular action on this continuum and determine where the break comes. I presume SOs would welcome WBF(LC) *guidance* on this issue. > Law 40D > allows the SO (RA) to prohibit the > understanding, a power that the WBF and > others use - for example, certain classes > of psyche are banned in Category 3 events, > for which there would be no legal authority > were it not for Law 40D. (Ton likes to think > of these announced methods as part of > system, and so indeed do I, but it > requires some rewording of regulations > and greater precision in the way these > subjects are expressed before this aim > can be truly achieved). There is no > obligation to prohibit the understandings, > the SO has discretion to allow them, or to > allow them with conditions. I have no doubt that SOs are empowered to regulate certain actions, and can currently use their own interpretation of L40D to extend that regulatory scope. However, we would, I hope, all agree that a blanket "You may never psyche 1 level opening bids on hands of less than a king below average strength" is going way too far. I suspect that, on the whole, current SO regulations are not particularly well-designed in this respect. Personally I think SOs should adopt a fairly light hand here - just enough to make sure that a pair cannot play a HUM by claiming that a particular aspect is a psyche. Specifically, even if we were all to agree that the HDW1H *could* be regulated, I would be disappointed if *my* SO wanted to ban it - why protect people from their own stupidity. However, "You may never psyche [make] 1 level opening bids on hands of less than a king below average strength if you play a system involving low level enquiry bids by responder" would, IMO, be a very fine restriction. I prefer [make] to psyche after reading Grattan's final paragraph. > 5. The words 'agreement' and understanding' > in partnerships are used interchangeably; They should not be - they are different. Perhaps the WBFLC should check the original intent (if any) behind the difference. I have a feeling it could be related to matters of "style vs. system". > it would be helpful to tighten up this > looseness and refer only to 'partnership > understandings', but in the meantime it > should be understood, in my opinion, that > these terms are synonymous. We treat > them as being so. It would, perhaps, be better to examine the various situations in which they arise and examine, carefully, why the specific language was chosen. Grattan, if you already did this and then came to the above conclusion that's fine by me - I just don't want to see the gun jumped. > 6. My other observation would be that in > practice when we discuss 'psychic' > opening bids we are thinking largely of > bids that are made on very weak hands. > In the later stages of the auction psyches > sometimes occur as tactical bids on good > hands. We might do well to express our > regulations by reference to the wording > of Law 40D, not using the words 'psyche' > and 'psychic' at all since these terms > wriggle like eels in the hands of the > draftsman - as does also 'convention'. Agreed. Indeed the mere acknowledgement of tactical bids, and their distinction from psyches, will keep the East End in pies for months. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 23:37:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PDbjd19830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com ([192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PDbdt19826 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:37:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-6 [128.224.195.35]) by hermes.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Hermes 991202 TroyC) with SMTP id GAA23540 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 06:43:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:42:46 -0700 Message-ID: <004301bff657$5c5ab7a0$23c3e080@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 In-reply-to: <009d01bff5ca$443cd6e0$df5908c3@dodona> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > In the 1980's leading opinion in the > WBF was minded to limit the complexity > of players' systems by leaving them > short of space to disclose on the CC. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This is one of the scariest comments that I have seen on the Bridge-Laws list in quite some time. I would be extremely interested in getting some more information regarding the circumstances that are being described. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOX3DhCGkJ7YU62vZEQIuaACfVOHTO69LtIyyb1yHk9D7wBU+2gYAnA+X pNunR6gYcPcB6Y+IpdPs5to5 =tdJu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 23:37:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PDbaZ19825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:37:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PDbTt19820 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:37:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis87.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.87]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FY90017SA1ALX@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:41:37 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:41:32 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 In-reply-to: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Peter Gill , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000725153459.00a9c8a0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:17 26.07.2000 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > >From the current Australian Nationals: >Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) >i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 >76 K1095 >Q10874 A2 >7543 KQ986 >86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 Diamond jack is missing here (two d5 here instead). But that is not so important... >West North East South > 1C >P 1H Dbl Redbl >2D 4H P P >Dbl P P 4NT >P 5C All Pass > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. >5C made 11 tricks. > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted >to -300 in 4HX. > >Appellants (NS) claim: >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, >something that would have happened without the question." Well even if E asked only for this reason, he has every right to ask I think. Dont see any rule here which forbids asking a call. So says Law 40B: B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. In other words: the opps has every right to ask. The mistake in this hand is made by NS. THEY made a systemical mixup. >Decision: >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. This score is really weird IMHO. >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you >think of the appeal? I understand the appeal and the bad feelings about this but to me the directors decision seems just right. Cheers Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 25 23:55:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PDtIj19853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:55:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com [139.134.5.173]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6PDtDt19849 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:55:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da915775 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:48:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-16.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.16]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Lavish-MailRouter V2.9 13/6430382); 25 Jul 2000 23:48:33 Message-ID: <050b01bff6a3$22b2ab60$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:44:26 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, a pair submitted their system with (I think): 2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random psyche with about 0-5 points. The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations (i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without declaring it "Yellow" if: (1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and (2) the pair submitted an A4 page clearly and fully documenting the types of hands and vulnerabilities on which they do and do not use the Agreed Psyche. I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? Would it be banned outright? Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 00:35:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PEYSE19877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:34:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PEYHt19873 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:34:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA18032 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA13141 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:38:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007251438.KAA13141@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" [stating historical fact, not his own opinion] > In the 1980's leading opinion in the > WBF was minded to limit the complexity > of players' systems by leaving them > short of space to disclose on the CC. How clever. 1. You may not play any convention not on the CC. 2. The CC is tiny. Sounds like the "dots" convention regulations used in some of the Scandinavian countries except that it gives an advantage to pairs who can write small. And a different advantage to players who can read those tiny words. Those are good skills to have, no doubt, but I didn't think they were part of bridge. Deciding what to regulate and how is a difficult task, but somehow the above approach doesn't seem quite right. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 00:36:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PEaap19892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:36:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PEaTt19888 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:36:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6es11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.111] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13GxvN-0002Jf-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:10:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bff645$ffbcc1c0$6f8b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu><004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona><013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:16:12 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 25 July 2000 00:58 Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > My spell-checker suggests Gratin for Grattan. > > Lightly toasted ... How appropriate :)) > +=+ Some would say 'hard' cheese. I looked for 'probst' in my thesaurus. The screen offered a mixture of 'probe' and 'priest'. Sounds like the Inquisition to me. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 00:36:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PEar919904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:36:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PEagt19896 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:36:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6es11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.111] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13GxvS-0002Jf-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:10:47 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:28:28 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Dehn > To: > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:08 PM > Subject: [BLML] Re: Psyches, yet another try > > > > > > Grattan was the scribe on that decision, but it is probably > > too long ago to remember any details. > > > > > > Thomas > > +=+ Oh ye of little faith! I was only reading > the book yesterday (Monday) - trawling for > potential cases for the WBF 'jurisprudence'. > I might even have the appeal form somewhere, > with my notes. When I get to 'work' on Tuesday > I will open up a box file or two and see what > falls out. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ Now hear this! The convention used was not on the CC. N/S claimed damage because they had no opportunity to prepare a defence. A CC had not been received from the NBO, per regulation, and a 'third party' had filled out a CC for the pair in question. The Director (Kojak) had cancelled the result and awarded 3 imps in favour of the non-offending (N/S) side. A previous board had come to notice on which the same convention had been used against a different pair in the same match. That board was at this stage now treated similarly by the Director. Committee: Jaime Ortiz-Patino in the chair, with Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark and Grattan Endicott (also as scribe). Committee Decision: The committee noted that the pair were extremely experienced and should have been expected to know their responsibilities. They should not have been excused for the grave breach of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the methods on the convention card officially registered. They were barred from playing in the final segment of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Teams. The score of three imps to N/S on each board was confirmed. Comments: Kooijman - I do not agree with this decision at all. The question to be answered was whether North- South were damaged by the use of this convention (it was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it properly). Could and would N/S have done better knowing the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have caused too much trouble with respect to their convention cards and systems. Rosenberg: I don't like anything about this case. First, I believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation of the rules. Second, I think the E/W pair involved was unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was on a vendetta against them. Wolff: I concur with the ruling. I'm not privy to enough information to comment further. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- July 2000, Grattan remarks: It is always difficult in these tournaments at the highest level to be slack with the rules, because ACs get slated when they are. The Conditions of Contest were absolute in the requirement for the NBO to register advance copies of the CCs. The NBO did not produce one even at the start of the tournament and had a record of failures to do so in other recent years. When the 'friend' wrote one out for them the pair concerned were responsible for verifying it; a leading international pair has no curtain to hide behind when it fails in a primary duty. (The pair produced a more accurate CC which they informed the committee was the one from which 'careful explanations' were given.) The bid was illegal. The Conditions of Contest were backed by the 1987 Code of Laws in saying that a player may not make a bid on the basis of an undisclosed special partnership understanding. It was considered this pair had a record of inattention in this respect to the needs of opponents. The committee felt it had good cause to use its powers to the full. As to the 3 imps, if I recall accurately this was a Law 12A2 adjustment, the illegal bid having made it impossible for the board to be played normally. Let us add that the Polish pairs have now been for many years some of the most acceptable participants in the game. ~~~~~~~~ oOo ~~~~~~~~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 00:47:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PElGb19920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:47:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PEl9t19916 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (nash-dhcp-6 [128.224.195.35]) by hermes.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Hermes 991202 TroyC) with SMTP id HAA24157 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:52:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Convention cards {was: appeals/psyches} Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:52:17 -0700 Message-ID: <004601bff661$12f267c0$23c3e080@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 In-reply-to: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 10:16 PM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: [BLML] Convention cards {was: appeals/psyches} > > "Thomas Dehn" wrote: > > >There exists a problem here: No CC I have ever seen > >provides the necessary space to list more > >than the most basic general agreements of a > >well-established partnership. There is now way > >hundreds of pages of agreements can be squeezed > >into the 2 to 6 pages of a CC. > Matt Granovetter, in one of his books (Bridge Advantages '96, I > think) proposed a booklet rather than a card, each page of which > consists of a table showing all the possible calls over the "launch > pad", that being the call which gives rise to the table of > possible responses. He suggested such a booklet would have a > couple dozen > pages, IIRC. He seemed to think this is the wave of the future, but > I dunno. First, it seems it might take a while to look things up > in one these booklets My (obviously biased) view of the world holds that this type of mechanism is more appropriate for a computerized playing environment rather than games conducted in a tradional "face-to-face" playing environment. Hypertext based display media like those found in a standard web page provide a superior mechanism to represent this type of data. Assume for a moment that it was possible to develop a convention file that provides a mapping between a specific bidding sequence and a hypertext string used for alerts/announcements. Such a file would be an invaluable tool for online bridge. It could be used both to automate much of the alert/announcement process. It would also be a valuable tool for bridge instruction. (Such a system would provide the ultimate crib sheet for players trying to learn a new system) I believe that it is only a matter of time before such a system is implemented in some of the existing online bridge clients. However, I think that there is an important role that the WBF could play to promote the development of such a system. The online bridge community would be best served if the format for convention files were developed as an open standard. As an end user, I would like to be able to use the same convention file on OKBridge, the Microsoft Game Zone, or the new ACBL e-bridge venture. The best way to accomplish this is to independantly develop an open standard for this set of functions. Existing vendors will most likely adopt this type of system if it provides the least path of resistence. Existing organizational bodies like the ACBL and WBF need to take an active role in promoting open standards. I am not suggesting that the WBF or the ACBL should be hiring programmers or funding development projects. However, I do believe that the organizations could serve a valuable service by promoting these types of ideas and defining market requirements. > if we (at least here in the ACBL) can't > get players to fill out a simple CC, how the heck are we gonna get > 'em to complete a 24 page _book_? I very much take a build it and they will come approach. I would expect to see a series of standard convention files developed and distributed by volunteer groups. I would also expect that professional authors might chose to release a convention file in conjunction with the release of a new systems book. For example, NoTrump Bidding: The Scanian Way might be accompanied by a convention file detailing the Scanian system over 1N openings. For the record, if anyone is interested in working to developing a standard format for convention files, I am trying to generate interest in this project. I would love to see a project modeled after the Portable Bridge Notation efforts. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOX3T0CGkJ7YU62vZEQJaqgCfSsTD/0/nXzz2KdWYhWncneBTJhoAoOpm rC8hX3UWqEEF2jKgNZLesCBw =i3MH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 00:56:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PEu0e19938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:56:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PEtrt19934 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6PErR521231 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:53:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007251453.e6PErR521231@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:53:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Jul 25, 2000 02:33:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes: > > In-Reply-To: <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > agreed. > > > 3. A psyche of any kind of bid which is made > > with a partnership understanding that is not > > announced is illegal under the laws and may be > > With exceptions. For example if playing against opponents who > are known to be competent (or due to the nature of the competition > are reasonably expected to be competent) one is always permitted to > make "common psyches" (eg Ferdinand's, joke NTs, fake cue-bids etc.) > Competent opponents should all be aware of these. Put another way > opponents who are unaware of these simple mechanisms can hardly be > called competent. The was a famous ruling in the ACBL a while back. Robinson-Woolsey (playing in I believe the Blue Ribbon pairs, one of the strongest pairs games in the ACBL) were ruled to be playing an illegal convention (the comic NT) after one of them overcalled 1NT and his partner alerted (because they had a partnership tendancy to psyche this call.) There was no issue of partner's having fielded the psyche and they had no bidding structure to uncover the psyche. Effectively what the AC ruling said was that you can't agree to psyche 1NT overcalls. One of the really interesting things is that had the overcall not been alerted it would almost certainly have passed without comment. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 00:57:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PEvdD19950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:57:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PEvXt19946 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:57:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA08709; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:58:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200007251458.HAA08709@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:44:26 PDT." <050b01bff6a3$22b2ab60$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:58:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, > a pair submitted their system with (I think): > > 2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random > psyche with about 0-5 points. > > The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes > their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations > (i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without > declaring it "Yellow" if: > (1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and > (2) the pair submitted an A4 page clearly and fully documenting > the types of hands and vulnerabilities on which they do and do > not use the Agreed Psyche. > > I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was > submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? > Would it be banned outright? This convention would not be permitted by the ACBL in any event. On the Superchart (the most permissive convention chart), an artificial weak two or three bid must either have a known suit, or one of two known suits not including the bid suit. So no sort of "random preempt" is permitted in the ACBL. I still don't see how an "agreed psyche" could possibly make any semantic sense, but that's a topic for a previous post. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 01:05:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PF56x19967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:05:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PF4vt19963 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:04:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6PF3mw21730 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:03:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007251503.e6PF3mw21730@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:03:48 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200007251438.KAA13141@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Jul 25, 2000 10:38:22 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > [stating historical fact, not his own opinion] > > In the 1980's leading opinion in the > > WBF was minded to limit the complexity > > of players' systems by leaving them > > short of space to disclose on the CC. > > How clever. > 1. You may not play any convention not on the CC. > 2. The CC is tiny. > > Sounds like the "dots" convention regulations used in some of the > Scandinavian countries except that it gives an advantage to pairs who > can write small. And a different advantage to players who can read > those tiny words. Those are good skills to have, no doubt, but I > didn't think they were part of bridge. I recall a really funny article by either Miles or Kantar. For those who don't recall, they were famous for ever-changing, complex methods (and the disasters that arose from the forgets. Including a grand on a 3-0 fit.) The theme of the article was that the couldn't add new agreements without dropping others. There was literally no room on their card. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 01:27:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PFRAk19984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:27:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from uucp.nl.uu.net (uucp.nl.uu.net [193.79.237.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PFR4t19980 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:27:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by athos.nl.uu.net with UUCP id ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:31:03 +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 RAA25742 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:29:10 +0200 Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:28:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:28:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, >a pair submitted their system with (I think): > >2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random >psyche with about 0-5 points. > >The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes >their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations >(i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without >declaring it "Yellow" if: >(1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and >(2) the pair submitted an A4 page clearly and fully documenting >the types of hands and vulnerabilities on which they do and do >not use the Agreed Psyche. > >I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was >submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? >Would it be banned outright? A random psyche written on a convention card is not a psyche in my opinion, since the main characteristic of a psyche is that partner does not know about it. Therefore, this is a Brown Sticker convention (opening bid above 1NT, weak, suit is not known because of the random preempt version). If you want to call the 0-5 random psyche a psyche, it is still a Brown Sticker convention (at least, according to WBF), since opening psyches are listed under the Brown Sticker conventions. So such a bid would be banned if Brown Sticker conventions were banned. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 01:28:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PFS3k19996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:28:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PFRvt19992 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09225; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:28:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200007251528.IAA09225@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:38:22 PDT." <200007251438.KAA13141@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:28:40 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > [stating historical fact, not his own opinion] > > In the 1980's leading opinion in the > > WBF was minded to limit the complexity > > of players' systems by leaving them > > short of space to disclose on the CC. > > How clever. > 1. You may not play any convention not on the CC. > 2. The CC is tiny. > > Sounds like the "dots" convention regulations used in some of the > Scandinavian countries except that it gives an advantage to pairs who > can write small. And a different advantage to players who can read > those tiny words. Those are good skills to have, no doubt, but I > didn't think they were part of bridge. Not to worry. I'm sure the WBF would have followed it up with regulations specifying the exact size of the letters that may be used to write on the convention card, which would have specified in exact detail how much wider an "M" or "W" had to be than other upper-case letters, and the exact distance the dot on the "i" had to be from the rest of the letter. :) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 01:28:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PFSSt20008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:28:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PFSLt20004 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:28:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6PFRAf22903 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:27:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007251527.e6PFRAf22903@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:27:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> from "Peter Gill" at Jul 26, 2000 11:17:36 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes: > > From the current Australian Nationals: > Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) > i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > > Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 > 76 K1095 > Q10874 A2 > 7543 KQ986 > 86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > > West North East South > 1C > P 1H Dbl Redbl > 2D 4H P P > Dbl P P 4NT > P 5C All Pass > > Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > 5C made 11 tricks. > > The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > to -300 in 4HX. Seems correct to me. > > Appellants (NS) claim: > "The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > something that would have happened without the question." My opinion of this can't be stated in a family forum. Sure, East knows that N/S have had a biddy mixup. Get real! > Decision: > The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. Dodges the real question. Do N/S have UI and was it used? You know, if that D5 in South's hand is the DJ (and it's missing) 4NT is mighty appealing. You'll be playing almost double-dummy and if the heart don't come in, maybe the clubs will. I don't think I'd run though. That 4H bid is on partner's head and if he actually has his bid, I rate to be turning bad luck (or a bad decision by partner) into a complete disaster. My ruling: South does have UI. It clearly suggested any bid over pass. Director's ruling stands. I have some sympathy for the AC. But if they feel that the situation is in any way cause by the alert procedures what they should be doing is producing constructive suggestions. > PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > think of the appeal? -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 01:42:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PFffP20025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:41:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PFfZt20021 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:41:35 +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 LAA24577 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007251547.LAA24577@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <050b01bff6a3$22b2ab60$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <050b01bff6a3$22b2ab60$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:47:01 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 26 July 2000 at 11:44, "Peter Gill" wrote: >At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, >a pair submitted their system with (I think): > >2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random >psyche with about 0-5 points. > >The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes >their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations >(i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without >declaring it "Yellow" if: >(1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and > Fascinating...I can't wait to play bridge in Australia. Might just convince me I want to go back to my quiet safe simple life in the ACBL. >I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was >submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? In the ACBL, simple. >From the ACBL super-chart - used in the KO section (but not the round-robin section, that's more restrictive)[1] of the International Team Trials (to choose USA teams for world championships): ALLOWED (unless specifically allowed methods are disallowed): 1: Artificial weak bids at the two [...] level [...] must posess: a) a known suit, or b) one of no more than two possible suits not to include the suit bid. So, I guess if the psyche guaranteed hearts, or a specific black suit, it'd be ok, except: DISALLOWED: 1.Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods. 2.Psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. 3.Psychic controls. (Includes ANY partnership agreement which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych.) 6.Psyching a conventional agreement which may show fewer than 10 HCP and which is not permitted by the General Convention Chart. This includes psyching responses to or rebids of those methods. I'm certain the ACBL would consider this "primarily descructive" under 1. I don't think 2. applies, because it is labelled as being systemic. But if they have any way of recovering from it, 3. goes into business. If it is considered a psychic, then 6 also applies, because 2D showing hearts is not permitted by the GCC <.../charts/gcc.htm>. In other words, I think you'd have a very difficult time getting it by the Systems people. Michael. [1] A source of two of my personal, heated rants, which I will spare you more than the outline of. First, we guarantee ourselves a large handicap going into the world championships: since our teams never, even at qualifying time, play against the stranger parts of the bridge lexicon, we don't know how to defend against them (and have to carry around 450-page books, see , page 6). Second, people who get a bye through the round robin have a serious advantage over the rest of the qualifiers, as they can play Super-chart systems (Who, at this level, will be comfortable learning two systems, one which they can't play until halfway through an intensely grueling event - provided they qualify? I know I wouldn't, except for one simple switch-in call or two.) and won't have to face Super-chart systems from half of their opponents. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 01:53:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PFrYb20039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:53:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PFrSt20035 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:53:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09663; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:54:10 -0700 Message-Id: <200007251554.IAA09663@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:16:12 PDT." <000601bff645$ffbcc1c0$6f8b93c3@pacific> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 08:54:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > > My spell-checker suggests Gratin for Grattan. > > > > Lightly toasted ... How appropriate :)) > > > +=+ Some would say 'hard' cheese. I looked > for 'probst' in my thesaurus. The screen offered > a mixture of 'probe' and 'priest'. Sounds like > the Inquisition to me. ~ G ~ +=+ Yep, he's going to have to start signing his e-mail as John (Torquemada) Probst . . . -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 02:12:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PGC6Z20064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:12:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PGBxt20060 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:12:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.119.6] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13H7NC-0001KY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:16:03 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bff653$9ef77840$0677073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:15:57 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ Now hear this! > The convention used was not on the CC. > N/S claimed damage because they had > no opportunity to prepare a defence. > A CC had not been received from the > NBO, per regulation, and a 'third party' had > filled out a CC for the pair in question. I have some interest in this case, for the whole thing may to some extent have been my fault. I was in Albuquerque, watching the Rosenblum semi-final between Poland and Sweden on Vugraph. A hand came up on which a Swede (I think it was Daniel Auby) opened one of a suit. Adam Zmudzinski on his left doubled on a balanced 16 count that looked like a textbook 1NT overcall. The commentators expressed some surprise at this, and I suggested that Z might not have been able to overcall 1NT because it would have a conventional meaning. John Armstrong, who was sitting with me, confirmed that this was almost cetainly the case. The convention cards provided for the Vugraph commentators were checked, and a 1NT overcall was described on them as natural. At this point I became aware of some agitated mutterings among the Swedish contingent in the audience, and shortly afterwards, it was learned that a protest had been lodged and a ruling would be given. To recap: the convention used was the "standard" Polish 1NT overcall of a one-level opening. This shows a limited hand with a four-card major and a longer minor (over a 1m opening, the major is unspecified; over a 1M opening, the minor is not known). This is not, as far as I can tell, even a Brown Sticker convention since there is always one suit known to contain at least four cards. However, the convention is one that, if it is used against an unprepared pair, can do some damage because it is not intuitively obvious what your defence "ought to" be. For example, if the bidding proceeds: West North East South 1H 1NT (four spades, 5+ clubs or 5+ diamonds, about 10-16 hcp) ? would your regular partner know what your 2S bid meant at this point? Certainly, the opponents in question were all experienced international players, and would doubtless have encountered this convention before. However, it is fair to say that they would not have known it was being played on this occasion, and may very well not have revised their defences to it. > The Director (Kojak) had cancelled the result and > awarded 3 imps in favour of the non-offending (N/S) > side. A previous board had come to notice on > which the same convention had been used against > a different pair in the same match. That board was > at this stage now treated similarly by the Director. Well, there were actually three occasions in all on which the convention had been used. On each of them, Poland had gained a double-digit swing; on none of the occasions was this due to the fact that the opponents did not defend adequately against the convention. The effect of the Director's adjustments was therefore to reduce Poland's lead by over 40 IMPs. Moreover, Balicki and Zmudzinski (for it was they) were prevented from playing in the final 16-board stanza, meaning that the Polish sponsor Otvosi and his partner were called upon to defend a lead that was now about 15 IMPs rather than about 60. Despite the fact that the sponsor was not, shall we say, the greatest striker of the ball, his team contrived to hang on to their advantage. > Committee: Jaime Ortiz-Patino in the chair, with > Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark > and Grattan Endicott (also as scribe). > Committee Decision: The committee noted that the > pair were extremely experienced and should have > been expected to know their responsibilities. They > should not have been excused for the grave breach > of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the > methods on the convention card officially registered. > They were barred from playing in the final segment > of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Teams. The > score of three imps to N/S on each board was > confirmed. I recall that when the announcement of the ruling was made in the Vugraph theatre, I met Kaplan and Ortiz-Patino at the back of the hall. I expressed some surprise at the severity of the penalty, and Edgar said words to the effect that it was about time the Poles learned to play by the rules. > Comments: Kooijman - I do not agree with this decision > at all. The question to be answered was whether North- > South were damaged by the use of this convention (it > was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it > properly). Could and would N/S have done better knowing > the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have > changed the score. The Swedish team could not have done better knowing the convention. They could have done better, however, if they had been playing the convention themselves in the other room, for the gains to Poland came about because the hands were particularly well suited to the method. > A procedural penalty was obvious > and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have > caused too much trouble with respect to their convention > cards and systems. As one who has had the task of studying systems used in major events for the past thirteen years, I concur with every word of this opinion. The Polish methods never seem to be lodged when they are supposed to be, and what they play at the table never seems to correspond with what's on their cards. In fairness, though, B and Z have always been very good at disclosure - in the days when they played a HUM, there were never any problems in getting them to answer questions well in advance of a match against them. And, as Grattan remarks, the situation has shown a considerable improvement since Albuquerque. > Rosenberg: I don't like anything about this case. First, I > believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation > of the rules. Second, I think the E/W pair involved was > unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was > on a vendetta against them. There is some truth in this, as Edgar Kaplan's remark to me indicates. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 03:21:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PHLVv20109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:21:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe34.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6PHLOt20105 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 42161 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Jul 2000 17:25:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000725172526.42160.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.15.183] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000725153459.00a9c8a0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:26:50 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have grown to surmise that Australians often do not need strong values, in general mind you, and that this situation is made to order. It seems to me that East's question provides some information to W that it does not take much in values for him to act. West's double is likely to collapse 2 likely heart tricks into one such that 4 defensive tricks might turn into 3 and therefore is dubious at best and appears to break the connection by reopening the door for the opponents to recover. Also, I am not so sure as to the admissibility of W's double of 4H [the question suggests that the double was not shaded, doesn't it?]. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Bley To: Peter Gill ; Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 | At 11:17 26.07.2000 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: | > >From the current Australian Nationals: | >Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) | >i.e. all players are among Australia's best. | > | >Dlr S, Nil Vul | > A84 | > KJ953 | > 10 | > Q543 | >76 K1095 | >Q10874 A2 | >7543 KQ986 | >86 107 | > QJ32 | > 6 | > A52 | > AKJ92 | | Diamond jack is missing here (two d5 here instead). But that is not so | important... | | | >West North East South | > 1C | >P 1H Dbl Redbl | >2D 4H P P | >Dbl P P 4NT | >P 5C All Pass | > | >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. | >5C made 11 tricks. | > | >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that | >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted | >to -300 in 4HX. | > | >Appellants (NS) claim: | >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST | >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question | >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, | >something that would have happened without the question." | | Well even if E asked only for this reason, he has every right to ask I | think. Dont see any rule here which forbids asking a call. | So says Law 40B: | | B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited | A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership | understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to | understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call | or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. | | In other words: the opps has every right to ask. The mistake in this hand | is made by NS. THEY made a systemical mixup. | | >Decision: | >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, | >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. | | This score is really weird IMHO. | | >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our | >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles | >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you | >think of the appeal? | | I understand the appeal and the bad feelings about this but to me the | directors decision seems just right. | | | Cheers | Richard | | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 03:55:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PHtRE20127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:55:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PHtKt20123 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:55:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (arc-1-port-38.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.38]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA53712 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:59:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom> From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Unlucky??? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:58:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFF640.652003C0" 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFF640.652003C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 At a local club game, the following bidding took place. (I do not have = the hands and feel they are irrelevant in this situation): N E S W 1C 2C * 2D 4S * when next bidder asked for explanation, he = was told D 6C all pass Michaels for the majors as shown on the CC. =20 Partner of the leader won the opening heart lead and a heart was = returned which declarer trumped. At this point the Director was called. = After the bidding was explained to the Director, he looked at the hands = and told them to play then call him back after the hand was over. 6 = Clubs made. When the Director returned to the table he stated the bid = would be allowed to stand. The non-offending pair had a combined total = points of about 30 counting distribution. The 2 D bidder would have bid = hearts had he known the 2C bid was incorrect. Declarer did admit that = he had forgotten they were playing Michaels and was showing a strong = Club hand. The NOS called for a committee and after the smoke cleared = the committee allowed the result to stand stating that after the double = East was allowed to bid again and to correct to 6C. N/S were upset = because they did not have a chance to bid their heart suit and would = have competed to 6 hearts had they known the original bid was not = Michaels (showing 5-5 in the majors as explained.) The traveler showed = most were in 6H down one. Needless to say, N/S feel more than = disappointed about the ruling and committee result and I told them I = would ask about this ruling. (I was not the director involved).=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFF640.652003C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
 

At a local club game, the following = bidding took=20 place.  (I do not have the = hands and=20 feel they are irrelevant in this situation):

N   E     S    W

1C  2C *  2D   4S          * =
when next bidder asked for explanation, he was told
D   6C    all pass        Michaels for =
the majors as shown on the CC.

 

Partner of the leader won the = opening heart lead=20 and a heart was returned which declarer trumped.  At this point the Director was = called.  After the bidding = was=20 explained to the Director, he looked at the hands and told them to play = then=20 call him back after the hand was over. =20 6 Clubs made.  When = the=20 Director returned to the table he stated the bid would be allowed to = stand. The=20 non-offending pair had a combined total points of about 30 counting=20 distribution.  The 2 D = bidder would=20 have bid hearts had he known the 2C bid was incorrect.  Declarer did admit that he had = forgotten=20 they were playing Michaels and was showing a strong Club hand.  The NOS called for a committee = and after=20 the smoke cleared the committee allowed the result to stand stating that = after=20 the double East was allowed to bid again and to correct to 6C.  N/S were upset because they = did not have=20 a chance to bid their heart suit and would have competed to 6 hearts had = they=20 known the original bid was not Michaels (showing 5-5 in the majors as=20 explained.) The traveler showed most were in 6H down one.  Needless to say, N/S feel more = than=20 disappointed about the ruling and committee result and I told them I = would ask=20 about this ruling. (I was not the director involved).=20

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BFF640.652003C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 04:16:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PIGTl20149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:16:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PIGNt20145 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PIKNK27465; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:20:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:10:59 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:17 AM +1000 7/26/00, Peter Gill wrote: >Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 >76 K1095 >Q10874 A2 >7543 KQ986 >86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > >West North East South > 1C >P 1H Dbl Redbl >2D 4H P P >Dbl P P 4NT >P 5C All Pass > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. >5C made 11 tricks. > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted >to -300 in 4HX. > >Appellants (NS) claim: >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, >something that would have happened without the question." There was a case at the Albuquerque World Championships in which the AC condemned "randomly asking questions in the hopes of catching a fish." This applied to a pair which asked several questions in a non-competitive auction when it could not have had any reason to ask, and happened to get an incorrect answer to one of them, then claimed UI. But I don't see how this can apply here. I do not believe there is anything wrong with asking about the meaning of the opponents' last bid when you intend to pass this round but need the meaning in order to understand the auction later. A common sitution is an inquiry over an artificial overcall after partner's 1NT call. I wouldn't normally invoke the rule even after a single question asked at the wrong time. The penalty for asking about a call when you have no need to ask is the UI to partner, as he must assume you do have some interest in the call. If you ask about a 5C Blackwood response and then pass, you risk an adjusted score if partner leads clubs. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 04:54:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PIsBV20169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:54:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PIs5t20165 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:54:05 +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 LAA12944; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:54:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200007251854.LAA12944@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:58:22 PDT." <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:54:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy wrote: > At a local club game, the following bidding took place. (I do not have > the hands and feel they are irrelevant in this situation): > > N E S W > > 1C 2C * 2D 4S * when next bidder asked for explanation, he > was told > D 6C all pass Michaels for the majors as shown on the CC. > > > Partner of the leader won the opening heart lead and a heart was > returned which declarer trumped. At this point the Director was called. > After the bidding was explained to the Director, he looked at the hands > and told them to play then call him back after the hand was over. 6 > Clubs made. When the Director returned to the table he stated the bid > would be allowed to stand. The non-offending pair had a combined total > points of about 30 counting distribution. The 2 D bidder would have bid > hearts had he known the 2C bid was incorrect. Declarer did admit that > he had forgotten they were playing Michaels and was showing a strong > Club hand. The NOS called for a committee and after the smoke cleared > the committee allowed the result to stand stating that after the double > East was allowed to bid again and to correct to 6C. N/S were upset > because they did not have a chance to bid their heart suit and would > have competed to 6 hearts had they known the original bid was not > Michaels (showing 5-5 in the majors as explained.) N-S got a correct explanation of the opponents' system. There's no law making it illegal to forget your system and misbid, but far too many players fail to understand that. However, East had unauthorized information from West's explanation, and East must avoid using that information. In most cases, I'd allow East's 6C bid, though, assuming that he had a strong club one-suiter and that 2C bid showed an unspecified strong hand. However, I'd have to determine whether 6S, or some other call looking for a spade slam or grand slam, was a logical alternative. We can't answer that question without seeing the hand. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 06:17:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PKGPi20210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:16:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PKGJt20206 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:16:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PKK5708464; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:20:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:08:01 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Thomas Dehn" , From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 3:28 PM +0100 7/25/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Now hear this! > The convention used was not on the CC. > N/S claimed damage because they had >no opportunity to prepare a defence. > A CC had not been received from the >NBO, per regulation, and a 'third party' had >filled out a CC for the pair in question. > >The Director (Kojak) had cancelled the result and >awarded 3 imps in favour of the non-offending (N/S) >side. A previous board had come to notice on >which the same convention had been used against >a different pair in the same match. That board was >at this stage now treated similarly by the Director. > >Committee: Jaime Ortiz-Patino in the chair, with >Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark >and Grattan Endicott (also as scribe). > >Committee Decision: The committee noted that the >pair were extremely experienced and should have >been expected to know their responsibilities. They >should not have been excused for the grave breach >of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the >methods on the convention card officially registered. >They were barred from playing in the final segment >of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Teams. The >score of three imps to N/S on each board was >confirmed. > >Comments: Kooijman - I do not agree with this decision >at all. The question to be answered was whether North- >South were damaged by the use of this convention (it >was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it >properly). Could and would N/S have done better knowing >the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have >changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious >and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have >caused too much trouble with respect to their convention >cards and systems. > >Rosenberg: I don't like anything about this case. First, I >believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation >of the rules. Second, I think the E/W pair involved was >unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was >on a vendetta against them. > >Wolff: I concur with the ruling. I'm not privy to enough >information to comment further. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >July 2000, Grattan remarks: It is always difficult in >these tournaments at the highest level to be slack >with the rules, because ACs get slated when they >are. The Conditions of Contest were absolute in the >requirement for the NBO to register advance copies >of the CCs. The NBO did not produce one even at >the start of the tournament and had a record of >failures to do so in other recent years. This discussion, which didn't make it into the write-up, justifies the severity of the penalty. The original report could have been read as indicating that the CC was lost in international air mail and that this was a first offense. > When the >'friend' wrote one out for them the pair concerned >were responsible for verifying it; a leading >international pair has no curtain to hide behind >when it fails in a primary duty. Agreed. Again, this explanation suggests more than simple carelessness; in case of simple carelessness, the only penalty would be an adjusted score if there was damaged. > The bid was illegal. The Conditions of Contest >were backed by the 1987 Code of Laws in saying >that a player may not make a bid on the basis of an >undisclosed special partnership understanding. It >was considered this pair had a record of inattention >in this respect to the needs of opponents. The >committee felt it had good cause to use its powers >to the full. As to the 3 imps, if I recall accurately this >was a Law 12A2 adjustment, the illegal bid having >made it impossible for the board to be played >normally. This is justified if the convention itself is ruled illegal. That is, the infraction must be seen as playing an unlicensed convention, rather than playing a licensed convention and failing to disclose it properly. And in this context, it seems reasonable. There is a rule in the Conditions of Contest that all conventions must be on a registered convention card, and there weas no such card. I think the best analogy at a lower level is the ACBL: regulation that every pair must have a convention card. If a pair has no convention card, it may not play any alertable conventions until this is rectified. If the pair which has already been reported as having no convention cards then uses a Jacoby transfer, an adjustment will be made. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 06:19:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PKJjF20226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:19:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from aurora.uaf.edu (fxmgs@aurora.uaf.edu [137.229.18.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PKJdt20222 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:19:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25634; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:23:37 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:23:36 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: nancy cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? In-Reply-To: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, nancy wrote: > At a local club game, the following bidding took place. (I do not > have the hands and feel they are irrelevant in this situation): > > N E S W > > 1C 2C * 2D 4S * when next bidder asked for explanation, > he was told > D 6C all pass Michaels for the majors as shown on the CC. > > > Partner of the leader won the opening heart lead and a heart was > returned which declarer trumped. At this point the Director was Well, East is allowed to forget the system and misbid, but East has unauthorized information from West's explanation. Unfortunately, the correct ruling depends a lot on East's hand. From East's point of view, West must have solid or semi-solid spades and 10 or more points. If East has spade support, 6S is probably a logical alternative. East might have x - x - KQJ - AKQJxxxx, in which case 6C is okay, and E/W was just luck. But if East has something like Axx - x - AQJ - AKQxxx, then East should and must support Spades. -- Michael Schmahl (BS - Math / CompSci, 1998). Resume available on request. [ Jesus died for your sins! Give him His money's worth! [ - original -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 06:32:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PKWEC20239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:32:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PKW6t20234 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 06:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-236.cvx1.telinco.net [212.1.136.236]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09242; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:30:59 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01bff677$a3c374e0$ec8801d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: , "bridge-laws" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:26:28 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I do not believe that you can make even a common psyche if you have a partnership understanding not in this country anyway. The EBU says 'no systemic psyches' and for me that is the way it is. In fact I believed it was like this in the USA as well. Am I wrong? I do not know what law allows this rule, but if big brother can have it so can we all. mt To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies > > With exceptions. For example if playing against opponents who > are known to be competent (or due to the nature of the competition > are reasonably expected to be competent) one is always permitted to > make "common psyches" (eg Ferdinand's, joke NTs, fake cue-bids etc.) > Competent opponents should all be aware of these. Put another way > opponents who are unaware of these simple mechanisms can hardly be > called competent. > > Unless he falls foul of later provisos Herman is free to play his 1H > against readers of this list since we can reasonably be expected to be > aware of the meaning (we are almost certainly more aware than his regular > partners!). Once I say that my wife also knows exactly what a HDW1H is > (she and I have discussed it) he may play it against her as well. > > Where the SO mandates that psychic tendencies should not be disclosed > on the CC or by other prior announcement* it is appropriate to > alert/answer questions rather than "announce". After all many SOs > prescribe exactly what should be on the CC and all will recognise that > no CC is big enough to show all the agreements of an experienced pair. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 07:25:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PLOX420275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:24:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe31.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PLORt20271 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:24:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:28:05 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [194.222.6.72] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] WBF Convention Booklet Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:28:17 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2000 21:28:05.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[38773840:01BFF67F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I hate Outlook Express!!!!!!!!!!! OK, for anyone worrying about me [ha, ha] I have a complete computer crash and am writing from a laptop and reading mail via a browser. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have tried to find the text of the WBF Convention Booklet online, but I have failed. Can someone please tell me where to find it ? Also, I would like to know when it has last been updated. I hope you do believe I did try David's site, but I may have done it too superficially, so if the text is to be found there after all, be sure to blame me, and not him ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grattan found it somewhere. It certainly is not on my site. How about Anna Gudge's? Interestingly enough, I have discovered that I need to get some of it. To produce Cat 3 regs [and I have some EBU regs for Level 5 that are Level 4 plus Cat 3] there is a reference to it concerning multi-type openings, and I want the details please, so there is no refereence to the booklet in the EBU regs. Grattan, can you help please? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Reply to hotmail but copy to blakjak please http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 07:33:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PLXKd20288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:33:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PLXGt20284 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:33:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.98]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000725213725.YFVD4822942.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:37:25 +1200 Message-ID: <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:35:13 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Opening bid of 2s. When asked it is explained as "weak". The hand is: AKQ10xx QJxx xx x If this hand fits into that pairs agreements of a weak two do you consider that their explaination is incomplete? Does your answer alter if they have a card available that says six card suit 5-11? Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 08:46:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PMjXN20344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PMjRt20340 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PMnU727186; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:49:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:42:00 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 4:08 PM -0400 7/25/00, David J. Grabiner wrote: [concerning the penalty for playing a convention not on the CC in the World Championships] >I think the best analogy at a lower level is the ACBL: regulation that >every pair must have a convention card. If a pair has no convention card, >it may not play any alertable conventions until this is rectified. If the >pair which has already been reported as having no convention cards then >uses a Jacoby transfer, an adjustment will be made. I got this regulation wrong; the correct regulation is at: ftp://rgb.anu.edu.au/Bridge/Clubs-and-Bodies/ACBL/Tech/Public/CONV 2. If a director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play conventions listed on the ACBL Limited Convention Chart and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted at the beginning of a subsequent round after convention cards have been properly prepared and approved by the director. Further, the partnership will receive a 1/6 board match point penalty for each board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the restriction is lifted. In IMP Team Games penalties shall be at the discretion of the director. Thus my example of a Jacoby transfer would still be allowed (although alertable, it's allowed on the Limited Convention Chart), but a Flannery 2D would not be. This isn't a well-known or enforced regulation; the one time I called a director for it, when the opponents in the third round of a Swiss had no convention cards (meaning that they had played two rounds without any complaints), the director said that the penalty was that they could pley no conventions. When queried, "Not even Blackwood?" he corrected this to no alertable conventions, which was still wrong. (A PP should have been imposed in thoery, but it is reasonable not to impose one on a Flight D team in a BCD stratified Swiss.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 08:51:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PMouA20360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:50:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PMoot20356 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:50:50 +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 PAA16837; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:51:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200007252251.PAA16837@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:35:13 PDT." <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 15:51:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > Opening bid of 2s. > > When asked it is explained as "weak". > > The hand is: > > AKQ10xx > QJxx > xx > x > > If this hand fits into that pairs agreements of a weak two do you consider > that their explaination is incomplete? No, it's a fine explanation. The hand has only 12 high-card schmoints, which is short of the 13 needed to open, so obviously it must be weak, right? Heh heh. If the opponents are novices or typical club players, I'd assume this is their thinking. Against experienced opponents whose opening bids are so sound that they wouldn't include this hand, I guess I'd expect them to include a disclaimer that it's "weak" but might include hands everyone else might open. But I wouldn't make a big stink about it; it seems unlikely that MI damage will result. > Does your answer alter if they have a card available that says six card suit > 5-11? Probably not, if the opponents are novices. Now, I'd figure they put 5-11 on their card because someone told them to, but they still think they need 13 schmoints to open, so they're sort of fixed because they have a 12-point hand. If they're experienced, I'll just assume that one of his queens was hidden. I'm assuming this isn't a 4th-seat opening. If it is, my answer is completely different. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 09:18:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6PNI1D20381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:18:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6PNHst20377 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.189] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HE1M-000Ibj-00; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:21:57 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bff68f$80a338c0$bd5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200007251458.HAA08709@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:12:14 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche > > Peter Gill wrote: > > > At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, > > a pair submitted their system with (I think): > > > > 2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random > > psyche with about 0-5 points. > > > > The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes > > their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations > > (i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without > > declaring it "Yellow" if: > > (1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and > > (2) the pair submitted an A4 page clearly and fully documenting > > the types of hands and vulnerabilities on which they do and do > > not use the Agreed Psyche. > > > > I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was > > submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? > > Would it be banned outright? > > This convention would not be permitted by the ACBL in any event. On > the Superchart (the most permissive convention chart), an artificial > weak two or three bid must either have a known suit, or one of two > known suits not including the bid suit. So no sort of "random > preempt" is permitted in the ACBL. > > I still don't see how an "agreed psyche" could possibly make any > semantic sense, but that's a topic for a previous post. > > -- Adam > +=+ In WBF tournaments the bid would be Brown Sticker. It may be played in Cat 1 events subject to adequate disclosure; it may be played in Cat 2 events subject to adequate disclosure AND lodging CCs by a specified date in advance; it may not be played in Category 3 events. Cat 1 means Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. Cat 3 means the Round Robin of the Olympiad, all Pairs events, Junior Teams, matches of fewer than 17 boards in the Rosenblum and McConnell Cups, also Transnational events, IOC Grand Prix. I think the pair should not use the term 'psyche' - they should list the 2D bid and describe its possible meanings, with detail expanded on a supplementary sheet (especially if they have set criteria for when the bid will be one thing and when the other). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 12:49:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6Q2mpx20514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:48:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6Q2mkt20510 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.46]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000726025253.CLCZ4822942.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:52:53 +1200 Message-ID: <001901bff6ac$4afd8640$2e6860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:50:40 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Peter Gill" > From the current Australian Nationals: > Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) > i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > > Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 > 76 K1095 > Q10874 A2 > 7543 KQ986 > 86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > > West North East South > 1C > P 1H Dbl Redbl > 2D 4H P P > Dbl P P 4NT > P 5C All Pass > > Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > 5C made 11 tricks. > > The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > to -300 in 4HX. > > Appellants (NS) claim: > "The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, Except how did East know at that stage that there had been a system failure? > something that would have happened without the question." Why would it have happen? > > Decision: > The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. I don't see how this restores equity. After the bidding has got to 4H with E/W silent now how can NS score +150? > > > PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > think of the appeal? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 17:41:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6Q7f0n20620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:41:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6Q7eqt20616 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:40:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24034 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2000 07:42:58 -0000 Received: from mizra-10-156.access.net.il (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.10.156) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 26 Jul 2000 07:42:58 -0000 Message-ID: <397E9725.F6E9510@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:45:41 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List , Adam Beneschan Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche References: <200007251458.HAA08709@mailhub.irvine.com> <000401bff68f$80a338c0$bd5908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Sir I believe it is the time to stop this Sezific discussion and I beg you to publish for all people here and everywhere in the world : If any pair discloses that a call means : X cards (at least or at most) and/or Y hcp (at most or at least) and/or <.......expected answer from partner ....> and/or any bridge specification , IT IS NOT A PSYCHE!!!!!! I beg all of the people here to stop , YES PLEASE STOP to make loathsome the BLML discussions ................. Anything to be defined as Brown , Yellow , Green or 198765 Angstroms wave length color system ....is ok and any Regulation (Sponsor) Organization can define its own procedures , in the frame of the Laws. Please Grattan - publish a "Manifest" or any kind of electronic paper in order to bring all of us back to quiet & sanity ............ Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, > but that horses may not be stolen." > - Marquis of Halifax. > llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > llllllllllllllllll > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 3:58 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche > > > > > Peter Gill wrote: > > > > > At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, > > > a pair submitted their system with (I think): > > > > > > 2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random > > > psyche with about 0-5 points. > > > > > > The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes > > > their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations > > > (i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without > > > declaring it "Yellow" if: > > > (1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and > > > (2) the pair submitted an A4 page clearly and fully documenting > > > the types of hands and vulnerabilities on which they do and do > > > not use the Agreed Psyche. > > > > > > I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was > > > submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? > > > Would it be banned outright? > > > > This convention would not be permitted by the ACBL in any event. On > > the Superchart (the most permissive convention chart), an artificial > > weak two or three bid must either have a known suit, or one of two > > known suits not including the bid suit. So no sort of "random > > preempt" is permitted in the ACBL. > > > > I still don't see how an "agreed psyche" could possibly make any > > semantic sense, but that's a topic for a previous post. > > > > -- Adam > > > +=+ In WBF tournaments the bid would > be Brown Sticker. It may be played in Cat > 1 events subject to adequate disclosure; > it may be played in Cat 2 events subject to > adequate disclosure AND lodging CCs by > a specified date in advance; it may not be > played in Category 3 events. > Cat 1 means Bermuda Bowl and Venice > Cup. > Cat 3 means the Round Robin of the > Olympiad, all Pairs events, Junior Teams, > matches of fewer than 17 boards in the > Rosenblum and McConnell Cups, also > Transnational events, IOC Grand Prix. > I think the pair should not use the > term 'psyche' - they should list the 2D > bid and describe its possible meanings, > with detail expanded on a supplementary > sheet (especially if they have set criteria > for when the bid will be one thing and > when the other). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 18:17:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6Q8H9G20660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:17:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6Q8H2t20656 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:17:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.29] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HMR2-000Nxq-00; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:21:00 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Multi Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:22:54 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Multi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > +=+ My research has led me to the following > conclusions with regard to Multi: > (1) We normally think of it as Multi 2D but > the Systems Policy allows that alternatively it > may be Multi 2 Clubs. > (2) A Multi is not Brown Sticker if it shows > a hand which may be weak in either major and > has no other weak possibilities; it may have > 'several' strong meanings. No restriction is > stated as to these. > (3) There are, however, specified > requirements as to disclosure. The easiest > way to cover this question is to set out for you > the relevant text. [WARNING - read this in > conjunction with the WBF Systems Policy > since if any conflict exists between them the > Systems Policy prevails.] > > I quote: """ Specify with one descriptive word > before the word 'weak' your style for the weak > 2M: standard (i.e. a fair six card suit) or > undisciplined (i.e. bad six card suit or often > fair five card suit acceptable); or random > (anything is acceptable). You may use a more > descriptive adjective. After this replace the > word "or" with the strong hand types, using > semi-colons.Here is a proper entry on the > card: e.g. MULTI 2D (random weak 2M; > 17-24 three suiter; 25+ BAL). > Inside the card you must include a full > description of range and style for the weak > type. > Responder to MULTI 2 assumes a weak > two and bids as follows: > Pass: long in minor suit opener has > named (usually Diamonds) > 2H Pass or correct > 2S Pass or correct (willing to play at > least 3H opposite a weak-2 in Hearts.) > 2NT forcing, showing genuine values, > asking for clarification (specify rebids). > All other Heart bids: Pass or correct. > (include something descriptive about style > here) > You must have agreements about > responses of 3 or 4 in a minor. > You must have agreements about > opener's immediate continuations with > the strong hand types over simple and > jump responses. You must have agree- > ments in competition (including Pass > and Redouble). > > Note: If you have some special agree- > ments, such as 'might pass a 2H > response randomly with a weak-2 in > Spades' or 'Pass over opponents > double of opener means nothing' such > variations are sufficiently important > to merit "QUOTES" around the name. > Your opponents will want to know > about this sort of thing in advance. """ > ======================== > ----------------------------------------------------- > Note for Anna Gudge: unless John > Wignall comes up with a different > reading from mine (give him time > to do so) you could forward this > answer wherever the shots come > from. I do not think we should be > required to read every version of > Multi to see if it fits.~ Grattan ~ > -------------------------------------------------- > [Further note: since I wrote the above, John Wignall has agreed it, but has asked that in the example entry for a CC we add in a strong version that is 'Strong two in minor'.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 18:56:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6Q8uBE20680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:56:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6Q8u5t20676 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:56:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HN2q-00013R-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:00:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:58:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 References: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >From the current Australian Nationals: >Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) >i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 >76 K1095 >Q10874 A2 >7543 KQ986 >86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > >West North East South > 1C >P 1H Dbl Redbl >2D 4H P P >Dbl P P 4NT >P 5C All Pass > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. >5C made 11 tricks. > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted >to -300 in 4HX. > >Appellants (NS) claim: >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, >something that would have happened without the question." > >Decision: >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you >think of the appeal? > >Peter Gill >Australia. > Gulp I know that it's sometimes hard to find a suitable appeals committee but I think it was a mistake on this occasion to use the hotel manager, and the barman and the sweet little old lady that makes the tea. IMHO North South have been caught with their trousers in the lowered position and in return have accused East of deliberately cheating. How could East possibly know that South has shown any Hs? How does he not know that North doesn't have 6 or 7 ? I'm not sure it's a brilliant moment to ask questions but it's certainly a very natural response to a situation where we as a player are not quite sure what's going on and who is showing what. Who knows what went through East's mind at this point? I find the remarks of NS unpleasant and distasteful. Where on earth (or indeed the planet Zog) +150 comes from I don't know. 12C3 is a dangerous toy not to be entrusted to hotel managers, barmen and tea ladies! I don't understand how equity comes into this case at this point. We are required to decide by law if the pull is allowed - if we decide it is - then score stands - if not then back to 4Hx - now as I understand it equity might be relevant here - if we decided (not necessarily on these hands) that 4H was sometimes making 9 tricks and sometimes making 8 then the committee could in it's infinite wisdom award 50% of 4Hx-1 and 50% of 4Hx-2 or whatever. However this appeal committee seems to have infinitesimal wisdom. Mike -- michael amos -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 18:58:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6Q8wFl20692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:58:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6Q8w8t20688 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:58:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HN4n-0001I5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:02:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:00:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 References: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >From the current Australian Nationals: >Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) >i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 >76 K1095 >Q10874 A2 >7543 KQ986 >86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > >West North East South > 1C >P 1H Dbl Redbl >2D 4H P P >Dbl P P 4NT >P 5C All Pass > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. >5C made 11 tricks. > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted >to -300 in 4HX. > >Appellants (NS) claim: >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, >something that would have happened without the question." > >Decision: >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you >think of the appeal? > >Peter Gill >Australia. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ My previous rant deleted I'd have kept the deposit Mike -- michael amos -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 20:11:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QAAv220726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:10:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6QAAlt20722 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:10:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16128 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2000 10:12:54 -0000 Received: from mizra-10-156.access.net.il (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.10.156) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 26 Jul 2000 10:12:54 -0000 Message-ID: <397EBA4A.6794248F@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:15:39 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Gill CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 References: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hmmmm - I am happy my nose isn't so "sharp" but even it feels something stinks at that table.......... It is an amazing case..... First of all - it will be not fair to express any final opinion without being at the table - and be assisted by the KGB methods of inquiry. But any case there must be a very special and tough explanation in order to convince me the change of 4H bid could be honest ............ Second - the same statement about the AC (must be there to hear all the stories and considerations ) . But again - reading their decision - I feel there was a peace mediators commission not a bridge AC ......... Dany Peter Gill wrote: > >From the current Australian Nationals: > Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) > i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > > Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 > 76 K1095 > Q10874 A2 > 7543 KQ986 > 86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > > West North East South > 1C > P 1H Dbl Redbl > 2D 4H P P > Dbl P P 4NT > P 5C All Pass > > Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > 5C made 11 tricks. > > The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > to -300 in 4HX. > > Appellants (NS) claim: > "The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > something that would have happened without the question." > > Decision: > The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > think of the appeal? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 21:31:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QBVbZ20784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:31:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from d1o993.telia.com (root@d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QBVTt20780 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:31:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t3o993p42.telia.com [213.64.27.42]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA06186; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:35:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006201bff706$59293340$2a1b40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: SV: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:34:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e6QBVWt20781 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ???? I don't know what you have missed! Perhaps, it is the missuse of the word 'agreement'. Nowone at BLML have conviced me that psychic bid is well-defined. If you have one definition please let me known. According to your logic (if it is defined is not a psyche) you will not succed ;-) If you want to use 2D as a preempt, based on either 5+ in a major OR something else, the easiest shortest explanation for most opponents may be the Australian one. It is not even cloose to perfect, but it is easy to understand that the user claim that they donn't know more than you do about their holding if it's not one of the majors. On the other hand they probably understand the simple score princples; so even if they don't want to spend time on agreements, on a whole range of distributions and points, which they don't would like to show there might be some "zonalposition guidelines" for the opponents. I guess that our australian friend tries to play undoubled 2M even with the "psyches" and therefor have choosed the actual description of 2D. The ACBL "definition" of psyche is a definition of the psyche alternatives for every well-defined bid, so everyone are using systemic psyches and some of us want you to know that we are doing so you easier are able to defend yourself. What did your partner hold last time he/she psyched? If you remember you might use 'partnership agreement to psyche' yourself. Of coarse not, but some anti-psyche argument are that foolish. If you don't want to read this discussion you don't have to. If WBF don't solve this kind of law problem either WBF or the game bridge or both will disappear. Your yelling are just idiotic; try to understand others arguments instead, for instans why they are stretching the definition of words. It is a new world out there. just a thought: Is the watershed in this discussions the view of what a bid shows? How rigid is a "bridge definition"? As I understand none of us promise or garantee anything with a bid we just tell our partner that he/she should act accordingly to our agreement on every single bid. We create a code/language and us that and nothing else in our communication in what way we like without any secreats to our opponents. When you bid 1H your signal to your partner is 'what ever you like', but you know for sure that he/she some time have something else, consciously or not, for you or your opponents it must not be a difference. Please change the wordings in the Law! /Peter Swensson -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Dany Haimovici Till: Grattan Endicott Kopia: Bridge Laws Mailing List ; Adam Beneschan Datum: den 26 juli 2000 08:17 Ämne: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche >Dear Sir > >I believe it is the time to stop this Sezific discussion and I beg you to >publish for all people here and everywhere in the world : > >If any pair discloses that a call means : X cards (at least or at most) >and/or Y hcp (at most or at least) and/or <.......expected answer from partner >....> and/or any bridge specification , IT IS NOT A PSYCHE!!!!!! > >I beg all of the people here to stop , YES PLEASE STOP to make loathsome the >BLML discussions ................. > >Anything to be defined as Brown , Yellow , Green or 198765 Angstroms >wave length color system ....is ok and any Regulation (Sponsor) Organization can >define its own procedures , in the frame of the Laws. > >Please Grattan - publish a "Manifest" or any kind of electronic paper in >order to bring all of us back to quiet & sanity ............ > >Dany >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 21:43:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QBhPP20801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:43:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QBhIt20797 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:43:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-107.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.107]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21434 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:47:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397D8291.B4E1AFD7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:05:37 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try References: <200007241342150010.05EE5123@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > > >> > A 4S opening on a long spade suit is not (purely) > >> > destructive. It's pre-emptive. > >> > >>Well define destructive then : I'm using as definition : "a > >>call which prevents opponents from reaching their optimum > >>contract in some comfort, without having to gamble". Under > >>that definition, 4Sp is a destructive opening. > > You skipped over "obstructive". Taking up bidding room is legitimate in > this game. > > The line between "obstructive" and "destructive" awaits more precise > definition, but a natural 4S opening is hardly "destructive". > I fully agree with all this, Brian, but it was not my point. Todd's point was that certain calls were banned because they were destructive. If the only part of the definition of destructive is that it harms opponents, then that is no reason to ban a bid, or you should as well ban the 4Sp opening. In order for there to be good reason to ban a certain system, there have to be at least two elements : harming the opponents AND being able to cope yourself. Todd stated that calls were banned because they were "destructive", and he was trying to use the word destructive to incorporate both the multi-2D and the H1H. IMO, any definition of destructive that incorporates both those, must also incorporate the 4Sp opening. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 22:32:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QCVgs20905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:31:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QCVYt20901 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA01985 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:35:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 26 14:35:57 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JS85S22JFU001M7X@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:35:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:33:16 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:35:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 To: "'michael amos'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B649@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > > A84 > > KJ953 > > 10 > > Q543 > >76 K1095 > >Q10874 A2 > >7543 KQ986 > >86 107 > > QJ32 > > 6 > > AJ2 > > AKJ92 > > > >West North East South > > 1C > >P 1H Dbl Redbl > >2D 4H P P > >Dbl P P 4NT > >P 5C All Pass > > > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > >5C made 11 tricks. > > > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > >to -300 in 4HX. > > > >Appellants (NS) claim: > >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > >something that would have happened without the question." > > > >Decision: > >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > > > > >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > >think of the appeal? > > > >Peter Gill > >Australia. With the summary by Grattan about psyches that subject seems finished now (I even noticed some resistance starting!). Good then Australia brought 12C3 in the daylight again. This shows why the ACBL is reluctant to allow using 12C3. Though we do not have the reasons for the AC to support its decision (except to restore equity) it seems strange to me. In my opinion a AC should follow the laws consistently and not come up with all kind of fantastic decisions, they formally have the power to. The main questions here are whether south was allowed to bid 4NT or not and whether EW were damaged by an infraction (a wrong explanation or using UI). If South used UI that means that he was not allowed to bid 4NT. If he didn't use UI he was allowed to bid 4NT. There is nothing in between, so either the score for NS should be -300 (assuming the analysis playing 4H was right) or +400 (answering the question of using UI). And the score for EW should be the reverse. (conclusion: wrong decision) If there was wrong explanation EW could be damaged for other reasons, even if the 4NT was allowed. If south's double was no support west had the right to know and could have made the decision to pass out the 4H bid, to avoid S to bid 4NT if being an acceptable call. Here we enter the possibility of appying 12C3: If the AC considers west's double of 4H quite likely, even when west realises the possible escape, but considers the chance to pass quite possible as well, it could decide to adjust a weighted score. Last remark/question: how did the score of +150 come up? I don't like it, though, as I said before, formally spoken the AC has he right to adjust like that. But the AC should say to base the score on (let us say) 50% 5C and 50% 4HX, compare both with the other table and calculate the average in imp's. Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just was equity oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. If extra information comes available please tell me, I would be glad to adjust my opinion. ton >============================================================= > =========== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > >A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > My > previous rant deleted > I'd have kept the deposit > > Mike > -- > michael amos > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 26 22:37:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QCav720918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:36:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QCapt20914 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:36:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA09114 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:40:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 26 14:41:14 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JS85YLNBFE001M7X@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:40:48 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:38:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:40:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 To: "'michael amos'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64A@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It should be the average of -100 and 400 of course (since 4H undoubled minus 2 is not -300). And the average of these two numbers is 150 to NS, so who knows? Still my remark that this is a wrong way of calculating this average. ton > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > > A84 > > KJ953 > > 10 > > Q543 > >76 K1095 > >Q10874 A2 > >7543 KQ986 > >86 107 > > QJ32 > > 6 > > A52 > > AKJ92 > > > >West North East South > > 1C > >P 1H Dbl Redbl > >2D 4H P P > >Dbl P P 4NT > >P 5C All Pass > > > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > >5C made 11 tricks. > > > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > >to -300 in 4HX. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 06:19:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QKGum21088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:16:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f233.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.233]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QKGot21084 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:20:42 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.23 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:20:42 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2000 20:20:42.0412 (UTC) FILETIME=[F8D0A6C0:01BFF73E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael > > The line between "obstructive" and "destructive" awaits more precise > > definition, but a natural 4S opening is hardly "destructive". > >I fully agree with all this, Brian, but it was not my point. > >Todd's point was that certain calls were banned because >they were destructive. This is almost true. Add 'purely'. >If the only part of the definition >of destructive is that it harms opponents, then that is no >reason to ban a bid, or you should as well ban the 4Sp >opening. No. The difference between a natural 4S bid that is allowed and a destructive bid that is banned is that the banned bid has no purpose other than destruction (e.g., 4S on a void, 1NT 1st seat everytime). A natural 4S bid has a constructive purpose. 4D showing broken diamonds or solid spades... risky, but constructive. >In order for there to be good reason to ban a certain >system, there have to be at least two elements : harming the >opponents AND being able to cope yourself. Why the ACBL has a bias against artificial preempts and two-way bids, I'll never know, but this is not quite the same problem. (well, 2H showing a strong hand with horrible spades, or a weak/long spade suit, responses of 2NT shows 4+ spade support/stopper, 2S shows 2 or fewer spades looks remarkably like a systemic psych, except that your opponents know as well. It's a tough call, though I'd like for it to be fair game.) >Todd stated that calls were banned because they were >"destructive", and he was trying to use the word destructive >to incorporate >both the multi-2D and the H1H. IMO, any definition of >destructive that incorporates both those, must also >incorporate the 4Sp opening. I wasn't trying to include anything. You argued that H1H should be allowed as a psych since opponents can cope. I believe the bid should have to pass against the standard for destructiveness (whatever that is), the local biases against two-way bids (whatever they are), and so on, and that you call the bid a psych does nothing to raise or lower the bars for those other criteria. That the bid passes those other criteria does not mean that it is an allowable psych. This is the status quo, isn't it? Atomic playboy and international straw man, Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 07:09:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QL9Z921120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:09:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6QL9Rt21116 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:09:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 44550 invoked for bounce); 26 Jul 2000 21:13:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.39) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 26 Jul 2000 21:13:21 -0000 Message-ID: <00a101bff746$854dc0e0$272a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:14:40 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Peter Gill" asked: > From the current Australian Nationals: > Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) > i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > > Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 > 76 K1095 > Q10874 A2 > 7543 KQ986 > 86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > > West North East South > 1C > P 1H Dbl Redbl > 2D 4H P P > Dbl P P 4NT > P 5C All Pass > > Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > 5C made 11 tricks. > > The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > to -300 in 4HX. This ruling is correct. The UI suggests running from 4Hx. AI suggests that partner has a H one-suiter. Pass clearly is an LA, and running from 4Hx is demonstrably suggested by UI over Pass. > Appellants (NS) claim: > "The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > something that would have happened without the question." This is a frivolous appeal. The deposit is forfeited. If I get the impression that N/S make completely unfounded cheating accusations against E (who is a telepath and thus knows that N/S have a mixup :->), I add a PP of 15 IMPs (one full butler board). Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 07:59:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QLugg21158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:56:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6QLuZt21154 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 69320 invoked for bounce); 26 Jul 2000 22:00:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.42.39) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 26 Jul 2000 22:00:31 -0000 Message-ID: <00b001bff74d$1c43a180$272a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:01:31 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > July 2000, Grattan remarks: It is always difficult in > these tournaments at the highest level to be slack > with the rules, because ACs get slated when they > are. The Conditions of Contest were absolute in the > requirement for the NBO to register advance copies > of the CCs. The NBO did not produce one even at > the start of the tournament and had a record of > failures to do so in other recent years. Proper procedure thus would have been to penalize the NBO for not registering advance copies of the convention card. Or to penalize *all* pairs which did not provide CCs in time. The players from the poor Eastern European countries cannot afford to show up early at International Championships - they hardly can afford the trip at all. It is thus quite natural that when a pair's CC does not arrive in time some other player provides a substitute CC to the systems and conventions desk. > When the 'friend' wrote one out for them the pair concerned > were responsible for verifying it; a leading > international pair has no curtain to hide behind > when it fails in a primary duty. (The pair produced > a more accurate CC which they informed the > committee was the one from which 'careful > explanations' were given.) > The bid was illegal. The Conditions of Contest > were backed by the 1987 Code of Laws in saying > that a player may not make a bid on the basis of an > undisclosed special partnership understanding. It > was considered this pair had a record of inattention > in this respect to the needs of opponents. There is no such record against Balicki/Zmudzinski. Explanations provided by that pair at the table usually were detailed and correct. They also do answer questions well in advance of a match against them. There was, back then, a series of violations by *other* Polish pairs (not from this team). > The committee felt it had good cause to use its powers > to the full. As to the 3 imps, if I recall accurately this > was a Law 12A2 adjustment, the illegal bid having > made it impossible for the board to be played > normally. I do not see how the fact that opponents were not informed in advance about this fairly standard convention caused any damage. Both boards were played normally. In Board 28 (the other one), the 1NT overcall enabled the Polish pair to reach 6C. Kokish in the Albuquerque book about board 28: "At the table the Swedes seemed to have no problem with Balicki/Zmudzinski empoying the treatment in this match. Gullberg/Gustavsson claim ... that sind they have an agreement to play 'system is on' against such conventions they were neither concerned nor damaged". Clearly no damage here. With respect to board 33, Auby/Brenning had a prepared defense against the 1NT overcall, but it seems they did not correctly memorize it at the table. Still, it is hard to see that the bidding would have been any different with their prepared defense. Anyway, the Swedes lost the board at the other table where they allowed Gawrys/Lasocki to score an undisturbed +480. At best, they would have still lost a bunch of IMPs if Auby had decided to whack 4S rather than bid 5H. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 08:17:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QMGom21179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:16:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f10.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QMGht21175 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:16:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:20:32 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.23 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:20:31 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2000 22:20:32.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[B62CF560:01BFF74F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While I really do like this idea a lot, does anyone care to comment on the legality of accomplishing the second half assuming the first half fails? I guess that you could come up with a new interpretation for "without pause for thought." -Todd (neither a member nor advocate for the ACBL LC, and this is only on the agenda, not yet passed.) From: http://www.acbl.org/minutes/002motions.htm#002-300 Item 002-130: Administration and Interpretation of The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge Moved that: The ACBL Laws Commission is encouraged and requested to eliminate the concept and reality of changing (correcting) inadvertent and/or legal actions (calls or plays) once taken from the The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge and, where legal and otherwise appropriate, to interpret the present laws in such a way as to reduce this possibility. Management, in consultation with the Chairs of the ACBL Laws Commission, is requested and encouraged, to change its procedures, interpretations and implementations of The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge to reduce, as much as legal and otherwise appropriate, extending to a player the opportunity to change an inadvertent and/or legal action (call or play) once taken. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 09:19:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QNIMo21214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:18:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QNIFt21210 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07616; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:18:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200007262318.QAA07616@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:20:31 PDT." Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:18:48 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Item 002-130: Administration and Interpretation of The Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge > > Moved that: > > > The ACBL Laws Commission is encouraged and requested to eliminate > the concept and reality of changing (correcting) inadvertent > and/or legal actions (calls or plays) once taken from the The Laws > of Duplicate Contract Bridge and, where legal and otherwise > appropriate, to interpret the present laws in such a way as to > reduce this possibility. > > Management, in consultation with the Chairs of the ACBL Laws > Commission, is requested and encouraged, to change its procedures, > interpretations and implementations of The Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge to reduce, as much as legal and otherwise > appropriate, extending to a player the opportunity to change > an inadvertent and/or legal action (call or play) once taken. Uh oh. Fallout from the "oh sh*t" ruling???? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 09:57:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QNuej21239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:56:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QNuWt21234 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:56:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.87] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Hb67-000NN0-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:00:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bff75e$0b19f420$575408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Swensson" , "Dany Haimovici" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <006201bff706$59293340$2a1b40d5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:16:30 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Dany Haimovici ; Grattan Endicott Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 2:34 PM Subject: SV: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche When you bid 1H your signal to your partner is 'what ever you like', but you know for sure that he/she some time have something else, consciously or not, for you or your opponents it must not be a difference. Please change the wordings in the Law +=+ Hi Peter, If you noticed, when ton and I reached the end of our tussle, we were at one in our view that the word psyche is given too many meanings, and our wish not to use it for the situation where the partners agree that the bid can be something much different from the common expectation. It is not easy to find words for this, but it looks as though ton and I will be together in trying to have an alteration made in the terminology of this subject when we get to the 2002/05 Review of the laws. The Committee does not want to move until then. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 09:57:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6QNubX21238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:56:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6QNuRt21229 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.87] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Hb65-000NN0-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:00:21 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bff75e$09f4fc20$575408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "'michael amos'" , "Kooijman, A." References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B649@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 23:05:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'michael amos' ; > This shows why the ACBL is reluctant to allow using 12C3. > +=+ Agreed. It is the justification of Edgar's reluctance to trust any but an initiated sect to handle anything that smacked of judgement. Sadly. But we have to give out the responsibility and then help people to use it with good sense. +=+ > > Though we do not > have the reasons for the AC to support its decision (except to restore > equity) it seems strange to me. In my opinion a AC should follow the laws > consistently and not come up with all kind of fantastic decisions, they > formally have the power to. > +=+ Yes. But when any of us produces a 'fantastic decision' he does not have an inkling that it is anything but a reasonable judgement. That is why we need a balance of judgement on ACs, and even more importantly for Directors to consult before they rule in anything but a reading from the book. +=+ > > The main questions here are whether south was > allowed to bid 4NT or not and whether EW were damaged by an infraction (a > wrong explanation or using UI). If South used UI that means that he was not > allowed to bid 4NT. If he didn't use UI he was allowed to bid 4NT. There is > nothing in between, so either the score for NS should be -300 (assuming the > analysis playing 4H was right) or +400 (answering the question of using UI). > And the score for EW should be the reverse. (conclusion: wrong decision) > If there was wrong explanation EW could be damaged for other reasons, even > if the 4NT was allowed. If south's double was no support west had the right > to know and could have made the decision to pass out the 4H bid, to avoid S > to bid 4NT if being an acceptable call. Here we enter the possibility of > appying 12C3: If the AC considers west's double of 4H quite likely, even > when west realises the possible escape, but considers the chance to pass > quite possible as well, it could decide to adjust a weighted score. > Last remark/question: how did the score of +150 come up? I don't like it, > though, as I said before, formally spoken the AC has he right to adjust like > that. But the AC should say to base the score on (let us say) 50% 5C and 50% > 4HX, compare both with the other table and calculate the average in imp's. > Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just was equity > oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. > +=+ Unfamiliarity with the 12C3 technique. It points me to an additional item for the Lausanne Group in Maastricht. We should illustrate that the better way to calculate a weighted score is to convert each of the parts of its makeup to imps (or matchpoints) before computing the single resultant score. There are two possibilities at that point, either enter it untreated as a decimal fraction or round off to an integer, in favour of the NOS. This is a question of taste, convenience, ability of the scoring process to cope. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 13:59:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R3wS821346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:58:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R3wOt21342 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:58:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA13224 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:59:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:59:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies To: Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:01:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 27/07/2000 01:56:52 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a habit of psyching opening bids only in first or third seat, at favourable vulnerability. So when I open in second seat, my partner has UI that my opening is guaranteed legitimate. Under L16A, partner has therefore bid as if all my second seat openings are psyches. Since pard has adopted this actively ethical policy, we have had more interesting auctions, but unfortunately no longer win the local duplicate. Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 15:00:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R501m21378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:00:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.116]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R4xvt21370 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (1Cust48.tnt5.syd2.da.uu.net [63.34.197.48]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA19115 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:03:50 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000727150843.00859290@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:08:43 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk from Richard Hills: At 02:01 PM 27/07/00 +1000, you wrote: > >I have a habit of psyching opening bids only in first or third seat, at >favourable vulnerability. > >So when I open in second seat, my partner has UI that my opening is >guaranteed legitimate. > >Under L16A, partner has therefore bid as if all my second seat openings are >psyches. Aha, I think your second seat action is part of your system, so is AI to all. Your partner's treating it as a psyche which you have come to expect, constitutes a CPU :). Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 16:30:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R6T1c21417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:29:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R6Smt21413 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:28:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.82] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HhDk-0000NO-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:32:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bff794$d8378180$525608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> <00b001bff74d$1c43a180$272a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:34:19 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > There is no such record against Balicki/Zmudzinski. > +=+ The Committee had a different perspective at the time. It had nothing to do with explanations at the table, but was concerned with their tendency to overlook (some said ignore) stipulations of the Conditions of Contest. They had perhaps not encountered in their own NBO quite such a rigorous treatment of sloppiness of this kind. +=+ > > Explanations provided by that pair at the table > usually were detailed and correct. They also > do answer questions well in advance of > a match against them. > +=+ I do not know how the questions would be asked about a convention that was not on the CC. The complaint that was upheld was that they had failed to give their opponents the opportunity to discuss before the match what methods they would employ against the convention. To make the bid was an illegal action in breach of the Conditions of Contest.+=+ > > There was, back then, a series of violations > by *other* Polish pairs (not from this team). > > > The committee felt it had good cause to use its powers > > to the full. As to the 3 imps, if I recall accurately this > > was a Law 12A2 adjustment, the illegal bid having > > made it impossible for the board to be played > > normally > > I do not see how the fact that opponents were > not informed in advance about this > fairly standard convention caused any damage. > Both boards were played normally. > +=+ Normal play would not incorporate use of this convention which was not licensed for use because not listed on the CC. Pairs were obliged to restrict their use of conventions to those they had registered. All the talk of damage is immaterial; we are not able to say what might have occurred if the Swedes had been given advance notice that the method would be used. It is perhaps worthy of note that the WBF does not 'license' by listing conventions that may/may not be used. Instead it sets certain criteria and parameters for whatever conventions players might wish to list, and classifies conventions according to their 'match' with those criteria. Any convention can be played so long as it lies within the operative criteria for the category of tournament, is listed on the convention card, with such detail (if any) that the Conditions of Contest stipulate, and the player using it conforms to any special condition laid down. If these requirements are met the convention is licensed for use, if they are not met it is not to be used and has no licence. I shall observe interestedly what action is taken if a pair is found using a Brown Sticker convention in the Round Robin at Maastricht, without digging thru' the CoC again I seem to remember that they refer to score adjustment and a penalty, possibly disciplinary? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 16:36:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R6ZxC21430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:35:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com [139.134.5.180]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6R6Ztt21426 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:35:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia925764 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:41:33 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-190.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.190]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sparking-MailRouter V2.9 17/873057); 27 Jul 2000 16:41:32 Message-ID: <008d01bff7f9$bad98c40$bee436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:33:50 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: >This shows why the ACBL is reluctant to allow using 12C3. All members of the AC were International players, the AC Chairperson was Australia's National Chair of ACs, and my write-up to BLML is the verbatim Appeal Summary as submitted to the Daily Bulletin. Two of the AC members will play for Australia in Maastricht. South's D5 should be DJ. >Though we do not have the reasons for the AC to support its decision . The "reasons to support its decision" are not available. The main concern of many Aussie players and TDs was that the AC did not realise that L12C3 was not applicable to this case. Thanks to all the BLML respondents for their comments, which confirm that the outrage about this appeal in Australia is justified. The XX systemically was a Support XX. South had forgotten. >Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just >was equity oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. A very good summary by Ton. My main concern is that these AC members will continue to be on ACs and will not realise that in this case they were "wrong, wrong, wrong". And this appeal is not an isolated case. This is not a healthy situation. If I email some quotes from BLML to those AC members who have email, I will probably be in trouble (certainly I will be regarded as a trouble-maker), and they will probably disregard the remarks as being random BLML rubbish. I will think about whether there is anything to be done. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 17:19:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R7IXU21463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:18:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R7IQt21459 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.101] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Hhzg-0000yl-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:22:13 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01bff79b$c3a49d00$525608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:21:41 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 11:20 PM Subject: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > While I really do like this idea a lot, does anyone care to comment on > the legality of accomplishing the second half assuming the first half fails? > I guess that you could come up with a new interpretation for "without > pause for thought." > > -Todd > (neither a member nor advocate for the ACBL LC, and this is only on the > agenda, not yet passed.) > > From: http://www.acbl.org/minutes/002motions.htm#002-300 > > Item 002-130: Administration and Interpretation of The Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge > > Moved that: > > > The ACBL Laws Commission is encouraged and requested to eliminate > the concept and reality of changing (correcting) inadvertent > and/or legal actions (calls or plays) once taken from the The Laws > of Duplicate Contract Bridge and, where legal and otherwise > appropriate, to interpret the present laws in such a way as to > reduce this possibility. > > Management, in consultation with the Chairs of the ACBL Laws > Commission, is requested and encouraged, to change its procedures, > interpretations and implementations of The Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge to reduce, as much as legal and otherwise > appropriate, extending to a player the opportunity to change > an inadvertent and/or legal action (call or play) once taken. > +=+ Ralph Cohen tells me he may have one or two items to bring up in Maastricht when he finds out what happens at the coming ACBLLC meeting - is that in Anaheim? I wonder if he will ask us to delete any parts of Law 25? [wicked thought :-) ] Perhaps we could strike out 25B and alter 25A to read " Except as authorized elsewhere in these laws no call in the auction may be changed once it is completed. Any unauthorized attempt to change a call creates unauthorized information for the partner of the offender but not for his opponents." ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 17:23:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R7NZb21476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:23:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R7NTt21472 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:23:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.121.201] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Hi4d-0005sJ-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:27:19 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01bff79c$168902e0$c979073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> <00b001bff74d$1c43a180$272a1dc2@rabbit> <000b01bff794$d8378180$525608c3@dodona> Subject: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:27:12 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > I shall observe interestedly what > action is taken if a pair is found using a > Brown Sticker convention in the Round > Robin at Maastricht, without digging thru' > the CoC again I seem to remember that > they refer to score adjustment and a > penalty, possibly disciplinary? This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; (b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior Europeans. There, we were told at the Captains' Meeting that our teams could not play this convention, because we had to follow the Policy even though it was completely absurd. (You could, of course, play that (2H) 3H asked for a stopper.) The Roman 2NT overcall - strong hand, two unspecified suits - is also a Brown Sticker convention, and I have seen it on some cards in international tournaments. What happened was that the captains just agreed among themselves that if at the start of the match both teams consented to the use of the jump cue bid, it would be "permitted" in the sense that no one would protest about it. When we played against Norway, I hadn't spoken to the Norwegian captain, but one of his players duly produced the bid during the match. My player, who had (extraordinarily) been listening to what I said about the Captains' Meeting, summoned the Director, who asked me if I wanted to object. This was, shall we say, what my Latin master used to refer to as a question expecting the answer "no", which it duly received. This is an illustration of a phenomenon which, if I were a WBF official, I would find quite alarming. If the rules are barmy, the players will simply not follow them. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 17:55:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R7t7p21494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:55:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R7t0t21490 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:55:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.182] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HiYQ-0001cY-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:58:06 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bff7a0$c7919c60$b65408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <008d01bff7f9$bad98c40$bee436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:56:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > > If I email some quotes from BLML to those AC members who > have email, I will probably be in trouble (certainly I will be > regarded as a trouble-maker), and they will probably disregard > the remarks as being random BLML rubbish. I will think about > whether there is anything to be done. > +=+ I suggest a lack of haste. Wait until we see what wisdom emanates from the deliberations of the Lausanne Group in Maastricht. It might just provide a basis for further attention to the subject. Also I agree the blml remarks are 'just random blml rubbish', if this is the correct description of personal opinions not intended to be an authorized critique of a high level appeal case. It is a sad day when anyone in a position of authority cannot take an honest criticism of his judgement and, in this case, understanding. I thought all Aussies had tough skins? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 17:59:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R7x4921506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:59:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R7wvt21502 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:58:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.121.201] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Hicz-0004jN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <00b601bff7a1$0c405040$c979073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <004d01bff79b$c3a49d00$525608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:02:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > elsewhere in these laws no call in the > auction may be changed once it is > completed. Any unauthorized attempt > to change a call creates unauthorized > information for the partner of the > offender but not for his opponents." Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would be perfect. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 18:19:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R8Ik821527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:18:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R8Ict21523 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:18:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA06033 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:22:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 27 10:22:53 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JS9B8O08QM001LGP@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:22:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:20:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:22:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) To: "'David Burn'" , Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 27 juli 2000 9:27 > Aan: Grattan Endicott; bridge-laws > Onderwerp: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > > > Grattan wrote: > > > I shall observe interestedly what > > action is taken if a pair is found using a > > Brown Sticker convention in the Round > > Robin at Maastricht, without digging thru' > > the CoC again I seem to remember that > > they refer to score adjustment and a > > penalty, possibly disciplinary? > > This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's > suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; > (b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior > Europeans. This has been noticed long ago in my country (and probably a countryman was involved in noticing this in Antalya?). there is a second example, the old fashioned cue showing an ox: 1s - 2s. We even asked about it several times on a WBF level, but no success. Asking Kokish about it in Scheveningen (Forbo) earlier this year he said that of course you may use those conventions. Nice to relate this to the decisions against the Polish pair in ABQ and the formal approach of illegal calls. Probably not more than 15 imps per board as an average. My federation changed this regulation, though we try to follow what is decided on a higher level. There, we were told at the Captains' Meeting that our teams > could not play this convention, because we had to follow the Policy > even though it was completely absurd. This is an awful decision. (You could, of course, play that > (2H) 3H asked for a stopper.) The Roman 2NT overcall - strong hand, > two unspecified suits - is also a Brown Sticker convention, and I have > seen it on some cards in international tournaments. > > What happened was that the captains just agreed among themselves that > if at the start of the match both teams consented to the use of the > jump cue bid, it would be "permitted" in the sense that no one would > protest about it. When we played against Norway, I hadn't spoken to > the Norwegian captain, but one of his players duly produced the bid > during the match. My player, who had (extraordinarily) been listening > to what I said about the Captains' Meeting, summoned the Director, who > asked me if I wanted to object. This was, shall we say, what my Latin > master used to refer to as a question expecting the answer "no", which > it duly received. > > This is an illustration of a phenomenon which, if I were a WBF > official, I would find quite alarming. If the rules are barmy, the > players will simply not follow them. Grattan would say that they still follow those. There is no need to call the director as long as the irregularity is not publicly noticed. Small mistake by the player in your example and a big one by the director. He should have ruled that an irregularity occurred without causing damage, leaving it to you to appeal or not. Depending on your and Norway's ranking (one never knows what they do) you might have decided to play it all along. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 18:26:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R8QN321544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:26:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from square.inter.net.il (square.inter.net.il [192.116.202.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6R8QFt21540 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27612 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2000 08:28:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.4.64) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 27 Jul 2000 08:28:12 -0000 Message-ID: <397FF342.83E2571B@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:30:58 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> <00b001bff74d$1c43a180$272a1dc2@rabbit> <000b01bff794$d8378180$525608c3@dodona> <001d01bff79c$168902e0$c979073e@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree that barmy - or let say non clever - laws are a huge source of troubles. On the other hand - the moment you infringe one law - the dam crashed. I believe both issues are disastrous for the bridge game. The great laws makers - not for bridge only - are those who have the heaven's gift of cleverness and a centenarian experience of life , with the holy equilibrium. If you ask my opinion -> let pray it will work ! Dany David Burn wrote: > Grattan wrote: > > > I shall observe interestedly what > > action is taken if a pair is found using a > > Brown Sticker convention in the Round > > Robin at Maastricht, without digging thru' > > the CoC again I seem to remember that > > they refer to score adjustment and a > > penalty, possibly disciplinary? > > This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's > suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; > (b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior > Europeans. There, we were told at the Captains' Meeting that our teams > could not play this convention, because we had to follow the Policy > even though it was completely absurd. (You could, of course, play that > (2H) 3H asked for a stopper.) The Roman 2NT overcall - strong hand, > two unspecified suits - is also a Brown Sticker convention, and I have > seen it on some cards in international tournaments. > > What happened was that the captains just agreed among themselves that > if at the start of the match both teams consented to the use of the > jump cue bid, it would be "permitted" in the sense that no one would > protest about it. When we played against Norway, I hadn't spoken to > the Norwegian captain, but one of his players duly produced the bid > during the match. My player, who had (extraordinarily) been listening > to what I said about the Captains' Meeting, summoned the Director, who > asked me if I wanted to object. This was, shall we say, what my Latin > master used to refer to as a question expecting the answer "no", which > it duly received. > > This is an illustration of a phenomenon which, if I were a WBF > official, I would find quite alarming. If the rules are barmy, the > players will simply not follow them. > > David Burn > London, England > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 18:30:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R8UTx21556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:30:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R8UMt21552 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:30:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA19680 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:34:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 27 10:34:37 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JS9BN8H7KS001N2A@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:34:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:31:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:34:12 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64C@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 27 juli 2000 10:03 > Aan: bridge-laws > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > > > Grattan wrote: > > > Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > > alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > > elsewhere in these laws no call in the > > auction may be changed once it is > > completed. Any unauthorized attempt > > to change a call creates unauthorized > > information for the partner of the > > offender but not for his opponents." > > Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: > delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would > be perfect. > > David Burn > London, England Goodness, those stiff Englishmen ton > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 18:37:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R8awl21569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:36:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from svuns012.its.it (esmtp.its.it [151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R8aqt21565 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:36:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.250.197) by svuns012.its.it (5.0.034) id 396D8AB40003512E for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:38:33 +0200 Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it (151.92.249.147) by svuns013.its.it (5.0.034) id 3964C61A0004C198 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:38:33 +0200 Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:31:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Confusion Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:29:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I receveid this problem from a regional arbiter . K J 6 2 9 6 2 8 K J 10 6 5 4 A 8 7 3 A K J 10 4 Q 8 7 K Q 7 2 A 6 5 4 3 Q 7 2 4 Q 10 9 5 5 3 J 10 9 A 9 8 3 Contract : 4 Hearts by O , lead 8D The play is : K of D , A of H , K of H and 4 of H for the Q and the 5 of clubs by Nord . Now O plays the the 4 of D and on the 10 of S play the 2 and immediately he try to substitute with an honour . Arbiter ! The arbiter say that the 2 of d is card played . The play continues without any word by O on the precedent renonce of N. N-S win 3 tricks on clubs and play another club for the ruffle of E. Then Spade for the ace , spade ruffled by last atout . The player claims but Nord Shows the 9 of H and the spade . result 3 down ! Only in this moment O understand the renonce ! What is your rule ? Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce ) 2) 4H +1 ( par of the hand ) 3) 60%-60% 4) 50%-50% The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI I want to know your rule ? Thanks and bye ENNIO NARDULLO -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 18:39:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R8dEA21581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:39:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f5.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R8d8t21577 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:42:56 -0700 Received: from 172.155.4.18 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.4.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:42:56 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2000 08:42:56.0563 (UTC) FILETIME=[A93CD030:01BFF7A6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Grattan wrote: > > Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > > alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > > elsewhere in these laws no call in the > > auction may be changed once it is > > completed. Any unauthorized attempt > > to change a call creates unauthorized > > information for the partner of the > > offender but not for his opponents." > >Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: >delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would >be perfect. But then how do you deal with insufficient bids that are not accepted? Status quo seems reasonable until that and other cases where a made bid cannot be allowed to stand are specifically addressed. Or maybe "no legal call in the auction...." *shrug* dunno. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 19:37:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6R9aql21610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:36:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6R9ajt21606 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:36:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA15785; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:37:00 +0200 (MET DST) X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "J.P.Pals" To: "NARDULLO Ennio" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Confusion Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:32:11 +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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-reply-to: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ennio Nardullo wrote (layout slightly edited by me): > I receveid this problem from a regional arbiter . > > K J 6 2 > 9 6 2 > 8 > K J 10 6 5 > >4 A 8 7 3 >A K J 10 4 Q 8 7 >K Q 7 2 A 6 5 4 3 >Q 7 2 4 > > Q 10 9 5 > 5 3 > J 10 9 > A 9 8 3 > > Contract : 4 Hearts by O , lead 8D > > The play is : K of D , A of H , K of H and 4 of H for the Q and the 5 of > clubs by Nord . > Now O plays the the 4 of D and on the 10 of S play the 2 and > immediately he > try to substitute with an honour . > Arbiter ! The arbiter say that the 2 of d is card played . The play > continues without any word by O on the precedent renonce of N. > N-S win 3 tricks on clubs and play another club for the ruffle of E. > Then Spade for the ace , spade ruffled by last atout . > The player claims but Nord Shows the 9 of H and the spade . > result 3 down ! > Only in this moment O understand the renonce ! > > What is your rule ? > Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : > 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce) > 2) 4H +1 (par of the hand) > 3) 60%-60% > 4) 50%-50% > > The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI > I want to know your rule ? Declarer did, let us say, not play the hand to his best advantage. Without the revoke he would have made 9 tricks: he loses a trick in diamonds and three in clubs. According to L64a2 the revoke costs NS two tricks. So I adjust per L64c to 4H +1. BTW, which law says that the 5 of clubs is UI? Cheers, JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 20:54:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RAsOD21643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:54:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RAsHt21639 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:54:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA17310 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:58:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 27 12:58:31 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JS9GON1SVU001MR1@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:58:08 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:55:52 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:58:06 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Confusion To: "'J.P.Pals'" , NARDULLO Ennio Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64D@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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > What is your rule ? > > Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : > > 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce) > > 2) 4H +1 (par of the hand) > > 3) 60%-60% > > 4) 50%-50% > > > > The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI > > I want to know your rule ? > > Declarer did, let us say, not play the hand to his best advantage. > Without the revoke he would have made 9 tricks: he loses a > trick in diamonds > and three in clubs. According to L64a2 the revoke costs NS > two tricks. So I > adjust per L64c to 4H +1. > BTW, which law says that the 5 of clubs is UI? > Cheers, JP I only understand this answer if you want to contribute to the title of this problem: 'confusion' Either we apply 64a or (exclusive) 64c (when 64a doesn't give enough compensation). 64a brings us at 9 tricks, which is - as you analysed - what would have been the result without the revoke. Then 9 tricks seems sufficient. I don't understand why we need to bring in UI seeing the C5 to come to this decision. But there might be a problem. Suppose the C5 is an encouraging signal for clubs and the switch is not obvious. Then I agree that there is no law explicitly saying that the card with which the revoke occurred creates UI (which seems strange, because it would when noticed by declarer and becoming a penalty card). In my opinion (well done ton), but this is new interpretation, we could apply 64c for that. Damage for which the penalty doesn't compensate sufficiently. If you don't like that we solve it by using 72B1: north could have known that a (n illegal) positive signal in clubs could very well damage EW. Which one do you prefer to be written on the appeal form as a reference for the decision? (Mainly for Grattan: reading 50D1 again: 'information arising from facing of a penalty card is UI for partner'. I wonder why it doesn't say: information arising from facing a card that might become a penalty card is UI for partner'? That covers this specific case but also withdrawn penalty cards. Is there any objection to rephrase it like that?) ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 21:26:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RBQIS21665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:26:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RBQBt21661 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:26:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-186.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.186]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09679 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:30:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <397ED7B2.CF6E88D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:21:06 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ Now hear this! [snipped] I have in the past often criticised the use of L40A for the banning of calls, and I stand by that statement. However, I can understand the AC in this case, and I see that, as an extraordinary measure to cope with extreme disregard for the regulations, the banning by L40A is correct. On the whole, I agree with this case. But I don't believe this is a good case of jurisprudence, as one hopes that this sort of action does not occur all too frequently. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 21:42:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RBfsW21682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:41:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RBflt21678 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:41:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-121.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.121]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA21191 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:45:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "J.P.Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Confusion Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:40:50 +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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > > > What is your rule ? > > > Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : > > > 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce) > > > 2) 4H +1 (par of the hand) > > > 3) 60%-60% > > > 4) 50%-50% > > > > > > The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI > > > I want to know your rule ? > > > > Declarer did, let us say, not play the hand to his best advantage. > > Without the revoke he would have made 9 tricks: he loses a > > trick in diamonds > > and three in clubs. According to L64a2 the revoke costs NS > > two tricks. So I > > adjust per L64c to 4H +1. > > BTW, which law says that the 5 of clubs is UI? > > Cheers, JP ton wrote: > I only understand this answer if you want to contribute to the > title of this > problem: 'confusion' Yes, sorry, confusion played a major part in my ruling........ :-( JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 22:12:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RCBaQ21743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:11:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com [139.134.5.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6RCBWt21739 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:11:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea752912 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:14:13 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-224-97.tmns.net.au ([203.54.224.97]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Happening-MailRouter V2.9 5/5423885); 27 Jul 2000 22:14:11 Message-ID: <000f01bff828$35b99bc0$61e036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Confusion Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:10:15 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk JP Pals wrote: >Ennio Nardullo wrote (layout slightly edited by me): > >> I received this problem from a regional arbiter . >> >> K J 6 2 >> 9 6 2 >> 8 >> K J 10 6 5 >> >>4 A 8 7 3 >>A K J 10 4 Q 8 7 >>K Q 7 2 A 6 5 4 3 >>Q 7 2 4 >> >> Q 10 9 5 >> 5 3 >> J 10 9 >> A 9 8 3 >> >> Contract : 4 Hearts by W , lead 8D >> >> The play is : K of D , A of H , K of H and 4 of H for the Q >> and the 5 of clubs by Nord . >> Now W plays the the 4 of D and on the 10 of S play the 2 and >> immediately he try to substitute with an honour . >> Arbiter ! The arbiter say that the 2 of D is card played . The play >> continues without any word by W on the precedent renonce of N. >> N-S win 3 tricks on clubs and play another club for the ruff of W. >> Then Spade for the ace , spade ruffled by last trump. >> The player claims but Nord shows the 9 of H and the spade . >> result 3 down ! >> Only in this moment W understands the renonce ! >> >> What is your rule ? >> Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : >> 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce) >> 2) 4H +1 (par of the hand) >> 3) 60%-60% >> 4) 50%-50% >> >> The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI >> I want to know your rule ? > >Declarer did, let us say, not play the hand to his best advantage. >Without the revoke he would have made 9 tricks: he loses a trick >in diamonds and three in clubs. According to L64a2 the revoke >costs NS two tricks. So I adjust per L64c to 4H +1. >BTW, which law says that the 5 of clubs is UI? Without the revoke, I think declarer would have gone down one, losing one diamond and three clubs due to declarer's play of D2. Thus if I were to use L64C to restore equity, I would assign a score of 4H -1, which is the same thing that L64A2 leads to anyway. I would therefore rule 4H -1. Perhaps the "arbiters" who thought 60%-60% was possible could move to Australia and join our ACs? :) Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 22:17:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RCHjo21765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:17:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RCHat21761 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.99.17]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000727122126.SYRN16423.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:21:26 +0100 Message-ID: <003801bff7c5$304046c0$1163ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "BLML" References: <008d01bff7f9$bad98c40$bee436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:21:26 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >This shows why the ACBL is reluctant to allow using 12C3. > > All members of the AC were International players, the AC > Chairperson was Australia's National Chair of ACs, and > my write-up to BLML is the verbatim Appeal Summary as > submitted to the Daily Bulletin. Two of the AC members will > play for Australia in Maastricht. > Maybe the WBF should consider this case, look to it's COP for ACs, and where the recommendation that "good players" should be chosen for ACs, should amend it to read, "the hotel manager, the barman, and the little old lady that makes the tea." (quotes cf Mike Amos") Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 27 23:13:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RDCtF21813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:12:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RDCnt21809 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:12:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d484.iae.nl [212.61.5.230]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E36920F29 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:16:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <001201bff7cc$af0e4400$e6053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:12:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk IMO it is not a complete explanation. Weak includes a wide variety of hands: 5 card, 6 card, 7 card, second colour, etc. Full explanation is in this case the agreement: 5-11p., six card. OPs should not accept such an answer. I remember me the thread David J. Grabiner started: How to get "players" to know..... I don't see any problem as far as the information is given in this case. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 11:35 PM Subject: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations > Opening bid of 2s. > > When asked it is explained as "weak". > > The hand is: > > AKQ10xx > QJxx > xx > x > > If this hand fits into that pairs agreements of a weak two do you consider > that their explaination is incomplete? > > Does your answer alter if they have a card available that says six card suit > 5-11? > > Wayne Burrows > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 00:34:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6REYLo21843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:34:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from d1o993.telia.com (root@d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6REYEt21839 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:34:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t6o993p75.telia.com [213.64.28.195]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA26336; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:37:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009a01bff7e9$05002740$c31c40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: SV: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:37:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e6REYIt21840 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --- >When you bid 1H your signal to your partner is 'what ever you like', but you >know for sure that he/she some time have something else, consciously or not, >for you or your opponents it must not be a difference. Please change the >wordings in the Law > >+=+ Hi Peter, > If you noticed, when ton and I reached >the end of our tussle, we were at one in our >view that the word psyche is given too many >meanings, and our wish not to use it for the >situation where the partners agree that the >bid can be something much different from >the common expectation. Well, it's an understandable goal, but how to distingush between the cat and the dog and how to control? A "pure psyche" will always look like something much different than the common expectation and we all tends to build partnership with people with similar view of risks in the game. >It is not easy to >find words for this, but it looks as though >ton and I will be together in trying to have >an alteration made in the terminology of >this subject when we get to the 2002/05 >Review of the laws. The Committee does >not want to move until then. ~ G ~ +=+ > I'm looking forward that. Is it time for major changes? My today view is something like this (OK, I have pushed the funny echo button) The agreement of a call is defined by the set up of methods in the following bidding. (No one will ever expect not to follow their agreed methods based on the probability that partner has infracted them.) Infraction of an agreement will occur from: a) bad memory b) bad focus c) bad judgement d) fantasy All infractions should be treaten in similar ways by the laws. The areas a to d are the basic difference between competitors in all technical competitions. Without fantasy (something that differ much from the common expectation) this game is dead! Like soccer would be if you only were allowed to touch the ball once at a time (so called Norweigan football). Focus then on the explanations of agreement and style. To fully describe infraction type d you maybe should introduce a terminology like: i) subbidding ii) tactical preparation (cloudyness) iii) minor infraction of agreements iv) use of methods in a unusual way v) major infraction of agreements of points or distribution vi) major infracton of agreements of points and distribution i to iii are commonly expected iv include of cause conventions, the should be no difference between the use of bids. Please explain why. v and vi is just a way of distingish between normal psyche and H1H-like behavior. (Not good, but there is not so many real gross infraction on the weak side of a natural bid. ) We all knew what kind of infractions we have seen earlier from partner and may be we understand when it has happend again so it is easy to inform the opponents. The more defined system you use the more you tend to see when it is tactical to stretch your agreed meanings. Many natural methods are that diffuse that you can't "see" opponents card and then the risk of stretching become to large. /Peter >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 00:55:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6REt6w21861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:55:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6REsxt21857 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from p79s02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.122] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Hp6b-00043A-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:57:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bff7da$e24ea7c0$7a6293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "anne_jones" , "BLML" References: <008d01bff7f9$bad98c40$bee436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <003801bff7c5$304046c0$1163ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:12:51 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: 27 July 2000 13:21 Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Gill" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:33 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > > > Maybe the WBF should consider this case, look to it's COP for ACs, and where > the recommendation that "good players" should be chosen for ACs, should > amend it to read, "the hotel manager, the barman, and the little old lady > that makes the tea." (quotes cf Mike Amos") > Anne > +=+ On behalf of tea-ladies I object. The tea-lady cannot have been there - any tea-lady would have got the answer right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 00:58:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6REwam21873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:58:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6REwUt21869 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:58:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from p79s02a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.98.122] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Hp6a-00043A-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:57:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01bff7da$e175fb00$7a6293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'J.P.Pals'" , "NARDULLO Ennio" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Confusion ~ mainly for ton, and Kojak, and..... Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:09:24 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'J.P.Pals' ; NARDULLO Ennio Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: 27 July 2000 11:58 Subject: RE: [BLML] Confusion > > (Mainly for Grattan: reading 50D1 again: 'information arising from facing of > a penalty card is UI for partner'. I wonder why it doesn't say: information > arising from facing a card that might become a penalty card is UI for > partner'? That covers this specific case but also withdrawn penalty cards. > Is there any objection to rephrase it like that?) > +=+ My view is that any wording in the laws that has caused confusion or debate in these hallowed cloisters should be looked at. Often it matters less what the interpretation should be than that there should be no need for it. If you are pointing your boat at a determined effort to spell out clearly in the laws exactly what the intentions are, then I will help you row - well, on second thoughts, perhaps steer [:-))] the boat. I also repeat a thought I have already expressed that the WBFLC's guide to changes and their significance should be added to the law book as an appendix. Close the box with nails and then bind it with steel hoops. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 01:20:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RFK7g21895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:20:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RFK1t21891 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:20:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA22682 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA28364 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:23:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007271523.LAA28364@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Confusion ~ mainly for ton, and Kojak, and..... Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > I have already expressed that the WBFLC's > guide to changes and their significance > should be added to the law book as an > appendix. Close the box with nails and > then bind it with steel hoops. ~ G ~ +=+ A thousand cheers! Maybe a look at the Preface wouldn't be amiss either. (Pardon me if this was too obvious to be worth mentioning.) The 1975 Laws came with a little "Director's Guide" booklet written by Edgar Kaplan. Nowadays there are many other sources of such guidance on the market, but I wonder whether the WBFLC or the various NCBO's might want to consider supplying more than just the lawbook itself. Things that come to mind are: 1) an order form or catalog of the available guides :-), 2) a list of official web sites, 3) other ways to access things like the CoP, approved jurisprudence, etc., or 4) selected excerpts from CoP, AJ, etc. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 01:35:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RFZXq21908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:35:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RFZRt21904 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:35:27 +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 LAA23551 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA28477 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:39:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007271539.LAA28477@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > elsewhere in these laws no call in the > auction may be changed once it is > completed. Any unauthorized attempt > to change a call creates unauthorized > information for the partner of the > offender but not for his opponents." The above text will certainly make David S. happy, but it better come with a reminder to SO's to check their bidding box regulations. What I want -- and want others to do, for that matter -- is to lift the cards out of the box and then have a careful look to make sure I've got the one I want and that there isn't another one stuck to it. But if the call is already "made" when the (wrong) card clears the box, there's no point checking because the above law prevents changing it anyway. I'm clumsy enough that I get the wrong call about once or twice a session but careful enough that there's never any problem. It doesn't matter whether the call is "not made" or "made but changed under L25A," but it would matter a great deal under the proposed new wording. I guess what I'm saying is that manual dexterity should not be part of the game. If you do change 25A, the laws on declarer's play from dummy should also be changed. No reason for the two to be different in principle. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 02:28:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RGSeV21937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:28:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RGSYt21933 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:28:34 +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 MAA16549 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007271633.MAA16549@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> References: <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:33:41 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 26 July 2000 at 9:35, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: >Opening bid of 2s. > >When asked it is explained as "weak". > >The hand is: > >AKQ10xx >QJxx >xx >x > >If this hand fits into that pairs agreements of a weak two do you consider >that their explaination is incomplete? > Looks like a Schenken Weak 2 to me. What's your problem? Ok, so it's a little strong even for Schenken (though take away either queen, or replace it with the DQ...) and he would have voted it down on the heart suit irrespective of the spade strength... Seriously, contrary to the belief of one of our (former? haven't seen him post recently) members, here is a situation where I think style is of great issue, immediately. As far as I am concerned, "weak" isn't a complete explanation for a 2 bid, ever. Unfortunately, I'll never get more...mostly because "they" are happy with "weak" from me whether I'm in second seat (agreement: 2/3 or 3/5, 6card suit) or first, favourable (QJTxx and an outside K is fine) or even playing EHAA (where we alert it, and get 3000+MP players asking "what do you mean 'wide variation in strength? It's 6-12, right?'" (KQ QJ54 75432 85 is an EHAA 2D bid, as is -- Q84 AKQT85432 5). I would ask them what a minimum weak 2 for them would be, then suggest that they modify their explanations so that the opponents are aware of their specific strength agreements. I would tend to phrase it as "The requirements for weak 2s tend to be quite a bit weaker around here than yours are. Now, there's no problem with that, but the opponents are entitled to know that your weak 2s are sounder than they expect." and so on. >Does your answer alter if they have a card available that says six card suit >5-11? No, I still would want them to change their explanations so that the opponents would be correctly informed. I would, however, warn them that their CC needs to be changed if such a good 12 count is a "weak 2". ACBL-specific: if their minimum is really KQxxxx xx x xxxx - i.e. they have an 8 HCP range on their weak 2s - I will warn them that they either need to tighten it up, or they are not allowed to play any conventions over it. And I'll keep track of this, for future use...especially if they seem to be handling extremely wide-ranging weak 2s too well - while not giving the opponents an equal chance. Michael. [1] My current bugaboo is 1C! "could be short". When asked "under what circumstances", or "how short", the reply is invariably "could be short!". Now I can think of at least 5 different reasons why it could be short, and it will affect my bidding, or at least the negative inferences from responder's (often declarer's) hand. [2] Did my message from a week and a bit get through? or was it just not as interesting as the psyches? [3] For Eric Landau: You'll be happy to know that only three pairs in the Flight A regional we were playing (including a "name" you would recognize) grumbled about EHAA being "illegal" or "shouldn't be allowed." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 02:49:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RGnB521954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:49:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RGn4t21950 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:49:05 +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 MAA17178 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007271654.MAA17178@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001d01bff79c$168902e0$c979073e@D457300> References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> <00b001bff74d$1c43a180$272a1dc2@rabbit> <000b01bff794$d8378180$525608c3@dodona> <001d01bff79c$168902e0$c979073e@D457300> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:54:16 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 27 July 2000 at 8:27, "David Burn" wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> I shall observe interestedly what >> action is taken if a pair is found using a >> Brown Sticker convention in the Round >> Robin at Maastricht, without digging thru' >> the CoC again I seem to remember that >> they refer to score adjustment and a >> penalty, possibly disciplinary? > >This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's >suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; >(b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior >Europeans. There, we were told at the Captains' Meeting that our teams >could not play this convention, because we had to follow the Policy >even though it was completely absurd. (You could, of course, play that >(2H) 3H asked for a stopper.) The Roman 2NT overcall - strong hand, >two unspecified suits - is also a Brown Sticker convention, and I have >seen it on some cards in international tournaments. > Also, by the same reading(2.3a.ii, right?), a takeout double (or is that not an overcall?) is Brown Sticker, because it does not promise four cards in a known suit - if ToX is not an "overcall", then 1NT weak takeout. Actually, I am more amused by the fact that AFAICT, "Roth-Stone" is a HUM - "A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand" (defined as a hand containing one card of each rank). I do, however, realize how difficult it is to write definitions like these that don't have unintended consequences, and I hope that reality follows the spirit of the Regulations. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 02:53:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RGrdN21967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:53:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RGrXt21963 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24704; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:54:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200007271654.JAA24704@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:39:17 PDT." <200007271539.LAA28477@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:54:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > > alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > > elsewhere in these laws no call in the > > auction may be changed once it is > > completed. Any unauthorized attempt > > to change a call creates unauthorized > > information for the partner of the > > offender but not for his opponents." > > The above text will certainly make David S. happy, but it better come > with a reminder to SO's to check their bidding box regulations. > > What I want -- and want others to do, for that matter -- is to lift the > cards out of the box and then have a careful look to make sure I've got > the one I want and that there isn't another one stuck to it. But if > the call is already "made" when the (wrong) card clears the box, > there's no point checking because the above law prevents changing it > anyway. I'm clumsy enough that I get the wrong call about once or > twice a session but careful enough that there's never any problem. Ditto for me, except that it's usually due to stickiness, which seems to be a serious problem where I play. > It doesn't matter whether the call is "not made" or "made but changed > under L25A," but it would matter a great deal under the proposed new > wording. I guess what I'm saying is that manual dexterity should not be > part of the game. I agree completely. I wouldn't mind a law that says "once a call is made, you can't change it", *if* one has sufficient opportunity to check to make sure you're making the bid you intend. Thus, if the rules are that once a bidding-box card is placed (not accidentally dropped) face-up on the table it can't be changed, that's fine with me, because you have plenty of time to make sure it's the right card before you place it. However, where spoken bidding is involved, there's no way to check, except to hear the bid once it comes out of your mouth. So a rule that says that once a bid is spoken it is final and may not be changed would not be a fair rule, because the connections between people's brains and their mouths do occasionally get messed up. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a rule that said a spoken bid that is not corrected "immediately" (within 1 second, say) is unchangeable, because a person who misspeaks and then doesn't realize it within that time period is simply paying insufficient attention to the game. Similarly for declarer's spoken play from dummy. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 03:30:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RHToh22004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:29:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RHTit22000 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:29:45 +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 NAA29139 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA28834 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007271733.NAA28834@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > I wouldn't mind a rule that said a spoken bid that is not > corrected "immediately" (within 1 second, say) is unchangeable, Heh. Unless I'm mistaken, that was almost exactly the rule in effect until 1987. I believe the exact words were "without pause." In 1987 (or possibly 1975 -- I don't have the lawbook at hand and am not certain when the change was made), the words were changed to "without pause for thought," which brings us to where we are today. I think the old rule was pretty reasonable. It made allowability of changing a call an issue of fact, not judgment of the bidder's intent. But no rule will please everybody or solve all problems. I think the best we can hope for is to have some instant -- preferably one as easy to define as possible -- after which the call is a) made, and b) unchangeable. The instant chosen should allow opportunity for correction of extraneous factors -- clumsiness or sticky bidding cards or genuine slips of the tongue -- but not be so delayed that there is any substantial likelihood that LHO will have acted. At least that's my view; others will no doubt have different opinions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 03:41:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RHfnn22021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:41:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RHfgt22017 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.181] (dhcp165-181.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.181]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RHjTt03256 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b601bff7a1$0c405040$c979073e@D457300> References: <004d01bff79b$c3a49d00$525608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:43:37 -0400 To: "bridge-laws" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 9:02 AM +0100 7/27/00, David Burn wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> Perhaps we could strike out 25B and >> alter 25A to read " Except as authorized >> elsewhere in these laws no call in the >> auction may be changed once it is >> completed. Any unauthorized attempt >> to change a call creates unauthorized >> information for the partner of the >> offender but not for his opponents." > >Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: >delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would >be perfect. The first sentence is needed as is for wrong calls pulled out of bidding boxes. The second sentence follows from the normal rules on withdrawn actions, and would already apply with either the old or new L25B penalties. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 04:15:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RIEsv22045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:14:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f37.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RIEmt22041 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:14:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:18:33 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.22 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Confusion Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:18:32 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2000 18:18:33.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[1297BC20:01BFF7F7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Peter Gill" >JP Pals wrote: > >Ennio Nardullo wrote (layout slightly edited by me): > > > >> I received this problem from a regional arbiter . > >> > >> K J 6 2 > >> 9 6 2 > >> 8 > >> K J 10 6 5 > >> > >>4 A 8 7 3 > >>A K J 10 4 Q 8 7 > >>K Q 7 2 A 6 5 4 3 > >>Q 7 2 4 > >> > >> Q 10 9 5 > >> 5 3 > >> J 10 9 > >> A 9 8 3 > >> > >> Contract : 4 Hearts by W , lead 8D > >> > >> The play is : K of D , A of H , K of H and 4 of H for the Q > >> and the 5 of clubs by Nord . > >> Now W plays the the 4 of D and on the 10 of S play the 2 and > >> immediately he try to substitute with an honour . > >> Arbiter ! The arbiter say that the 2 of D is card played . The play > >> continues without any word by W on the precedent renonce of N. > >> N-S win 3 tricks on clubs and play another club for the ruff of W. > >> Then Spade for the ace , spade ruffled by last trump. > >> The player claims but Nord shows the 9 of H and the spade . > >> result 3 down ! > >> Only in this moment W understands the renonce ! > >> > >> What is your rule ? > >> Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : > >> 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce) > >> 2) 4H +1 (par of the hand) > >> 3) 60%-60% > >> 4) 50%-50% > >> > >> The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI > >> I want to know your rule ? > > > >Declarer did, let us say, not play the hand to his best advantage. > >Without the revoke he would have made 9 tricks: he loses a trick > >in diamonds and three in clubs. According to L64a2 the revoke > >costs NS two tricks. So I adjust per L64c to 4H +1. > >BTW, which law says that the 5 of clubs is UI? > >Without the revoke, I think declarer would have gone down one, >losing one diamond and three clubs due to declarer's play of >D2. Thus if I were to use L64C to restore equity, I would assign >a score of 4H -1, Can 64C be used that way? I think you have to apply 64A first and then you can use 64C later to add even more tricks for EW. I don't see how you can start with 64C to restore equity without going through 64A first. >which is the same thing that L64A2 leads to >anyway. I would therefore rule 4H -1. Only if you don't award a 3rd trick under 64C to EW for the undeserved NS spade trick as well. Even with the strange diamond play, NS are only entitled to 3 club & spade tricks without the revoke while they got 4 with it. Also, I don't see the LA to the club switch even if we assumed that the 5C was UI. -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 05:07:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RJ7Sg22070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:07:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RJ7It22066 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:07:19 +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 MAA26923; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:07:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200007271907.MAA26923@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:43:37 PDT." Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:07:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > At 9:02 AM +0100 7/27/00, David Burn wrote: > >Grattan wrote: > > > >> Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > >> alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > >> elsewhere in these laws no call in the > >> auction may be changed once it is > >> completed. Any unauthorized attempt > >> to change a call creates unauthorized > >> information for the partner of the > >> offender but not for his opponents." > > > >Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: > >delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would > >be perfect. > > The first sentence is needed as is for wrong calls pulled out of bidding > boxes. The above doesn't ring true. I think the first half of the first sentence is needed to allow changes in insufficient bids, calls based on misinformation, etc. What's needed for wrong calls pulled out of bidding boxes is a decent definition of when a call is "completed". I really don't think any SO will pass a regulation saying a call is "completed" once the bottom edge of the bidding card clears the bidding box; more likely, a call will be considered "completed" once it's placed on the table, and (as I explained in my earlier post) I personally don't have a problem with a rule saying that a call stands once it's been placed on the table. Spoken bidding is a different situation, though; I *do* have a problem with a rule saying you can't change a call as soon as it comes out of your mouth. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 06:13:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RKD1P22129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:13:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RKCpt22125 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:12:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6RHAW427308 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:10:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007271710.e6RHAW427308@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:10:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <008d01bff7f9$bad98c40$bee436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> from "Peter Gill" at Jul 28, 2000 04:33:50 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes: > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >This shows why the ACBL is reluctant to allow using 12C3. > > All members of the AC were International players, the AC > Chairperson was Australia's National Chair of ACs, and > my write-up to BLML is the verbatim Appeal Summary as > submitted to the Daily Bulletin. Two of the AC members will > play for Australia in Maastricht. South's D5 should be DJ. Big difference I think. Makes 4NT much more attractive. Still, I see this as a no-brainer. Pass was a LA and the UI suggested bidding. But *this* is what the AC should have been discussing. I'd disagree if they came to the conclusion that sticking it out in 4NT was not a LA, but that's a bridge judgement I can deal with the notion of a strong AC coming up with a different conclusion than mine. > >Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just > >was equity oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. Words to live by. > A very good summary by Ton. My main concern is that these > AC members will continue to be on ACs and will not realise > that in this case they were "wrong, wrong, wrong". And this > appeal is not an isolated case. This is not a healthy situation. > > If I email some quotes from BLML to those AC members who > have email, I will probably be in trouble (certainly I will be > regarded as a trouble-maker), and they will probably disregard > the remarks as being random BLML rubbish. I will think about > whether there is anything to be done. You might want to consider soliciting comments on *all* of the AC ruling from people the players will respect. IE something along the lines of what the ACBL did. You could go one better and also have a commentary on the Laws. I realize that you probably can't afford to print them, but a web site with the rulings plus authoritative commentary on the rulings will probably do wonders. As a secondary issue. I wonder if it's a good idea to play a qualifier for a WBF event under local regulations. I know that a fair amount of thought has been given to your alerting regulations and you're moderately confident that they're as good as they can be made. But the qualifiers will be playing under different rules and experience with them would not hurt. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 07:36:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RLZUu22160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:35:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RLZEt22156 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:35:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.235] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HvLv-000N8h-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:38:04 +0100 Message-ID: <002601bff813$5402cd00$a05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Burn'" , "bridge-laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "William Schoder" , "Richard Grenside" , "Grattan Endicott" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:39:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'David Burn' ; Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > > This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's > > suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; > > (b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior > > Europeans. > +=+ I believe this is a false reading of the Systems Policy. The Systems Policy refers to 'overcalls' and , in my view (but I think also in the view of John Wignall since he has made no comment about an earlier exchange I had on the point, not on blml), these are distinguished from 'Cue Bids in Opponent's Suit'. Unless John comes to the surface quickly and says something else I think we may act upon the understanding that an 'overcall' is not in the denomination specified by opponent. I base my view on the Bridge Player's Dictionary; if you look at 'Overcall' you will find that it refers to 'other measures available' and quotes 'Cue Bid in Opponents Suit' as one of them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 07:55:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RLtTv22177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:55:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RLtMt22173 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:55:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.126] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HvgG-000NWj-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:59:05 +0100 Message-ID: <003601bff816$438c4b60$7e5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200007271710.e6RHAW427308@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:58:28 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > > You might want to consider soliciting comments on *all* of the > AC ruling from people the players will respect. IE something > along the lines of what the ACBL did. You could go one better and > also have a commentary on the Laws. > +=+ We should have the first schedule of the WBF Code of Practice Supplement - the jurisprudence - after Maastricht. This Aussie case is amongst the examples I am asking the Lausanne Group to comment upon. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 08:58:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RMtwE22216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RMtpt22210 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:55:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.169] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Hwcr-000PHQ-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:59:38 +0100 Message-ID: <007b01bff81e$b903bb00$a95608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Burn'" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:39:17 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'David Burn' ; Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:22 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) . > > This has been noticed long ago in my country (and probably a countryman was > involved in noticing this in Antalya?). there is a second example, the old > fashioned cue showing an ox: 1s - 2s. We even asked about it several times > on a WBF level, but no success. Asking Kokish about it in Scheveningen > (Forbo) earlier this year he said that of course you may use those > conventions. +=+ Stated accurately: 'you may agree to use those conventions'. In WBF tournaments actual use is then conditional on listing them on the CC. +=+ > > Nice to relate this to the decisions against the Polish pair in > ABQ > +=+ A condition to which this Polish pair did not conform.+=+ > > My federation changed this regulation, though we try to follow what is > decided on a higher level. > > There, we were told at the Captains' Meeting that our teams > > could not play this convention, because we had to follow the Policy > > even though it was completely absurd. > > This is an awful decision. > +=+ No, ton, your language is far too gentle. I have a much stronger word in mind. Were there no interpreters in Antalya? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 08:58:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RMu4x22220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:56:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RMtrt22212 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.169] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Hwcu-000PHQ-00; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:59:41 +0100 Message-ID: <007d01bff81e$bac76400$a95608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "David J. Grabiner" References: <004d01bff79b$c3a49d00$525608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:58:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > At 9:02 AM +0100 7/27/00, David Burn wrote: > >Grattan wrote: > > > >> Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > >> alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > >> elsewhere in these laws no call in the > >> auction may be changed once it is > >> completed. Any unauthorized attempt > >> to change a call creates unauthorized > >> information for the partner of the > >> offender but not for his opponents." > > > >Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: > >delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would > >be perfect. > > The first sentence is needed as is for wrong calls pulled out of bidding > boxes. > > The second sentence follows from the normal rules on withdrawn actions, and > would already apply with either the old or new L25B penalties. > +=+ Ton and I are spearheading a movement to screw down every law tightly and reduce the need for appeals committees to think. For that matter we are out to make it less necessary for Directors to think also. But we would not admit to any of this, would we, ton? :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 09:14:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6RNEQj22247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:14:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6RNEJt22243 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:14:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id f.50.8b34278 (6694); Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:17:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <50.8b34278.26b21d23@aol.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:17:55 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 To: Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.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 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 7/27/00 4:19:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > > >Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just > > >was equity oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. > > Words to live by. > > > A very good summary by Ton. My main concern is that these > > AC members will continue to be on ACs and will not realise > > that in this case they were "wrong, wrong, wrong". And this > > appeal is not an isolated case. This is not a healthy situation. > > > > If I email some quotes from BLML to those AC members who > > have email, I will probably be in trouble (certainly I will be > > regarded as a trouble-maker), and they will probably disregard > > the remarks as being random BLML rubbish. I will think about > > whether there is anything to be done. > > You might want to consider soliciting comments on *all* of the > AC ruling from people the players will respect. IE something > along the lines of what the ACBL did. You could go one better and > also have a commentary on the Laws. > > I realize that you probably can't afford to print them, but a > web site with the rulings plus authoritative commentary on the > rulings will probably do wonders. > > As a secondary issue. I wonder if it's a good idea to play a > qualifier for a WBF event under local regulations. > > I know that a fair amount of thought has been given to your > alerting regulations and you're moderately confident that they're > as good as they can be made. But the qualifiers will be playing > under different rules and experience with them would not hurt. > > -- > RNJ > -- Again, I find I can't keep my mitts off the keys. I think that it is not in the interest of our game for people who are in positions which are recognized as "authoritative" or "important" to make such strong judgements without all the facts as Ton has done in this thread. You might find yourself in complete disagreement about an AC ruling, and then you should stop to think about the effect it has to publicly state your strong opposition. Would it not serve better to find out ALL the details, educate the AC members if they were indeed wrong, take the time to investigate, ask, recommend, cajole, and improve the AC process, than to blatantly state "wrong, wrong, wrong?" (And also be what you think is "right" in your first response). I have never found it productive to improve AC and/or TD rulings by declaiming about them at length. And, please remember that there is an avenue available BY LAW when you are not convinced that the AC did the right thing. I would think that this is properly in the province of the "National Authority" per Law 93C, and would let an established process take it's course. Should this not result in a satisfactory solution, I would then advise that a private discussion be held with authorities to obviate repetition of a wrong decision. To wave the flags of rightousness in the face of ACs only serves to keep those people best qualified to serve on them from being"available" if called upon. Who needs the headache? I can foresee that it would not take much to reduce AC composition to those many who are eager to show how much smarter they are than the players should we continue to heap opprobrium on those who are best qualified. And, I submit that ACs, consisting of smart fallible people, are sometimes even WRONG -- but not because they want to be. BLML -- discuss what ever you like. Name names, posture, declaim, pontificate as you desire, but you would better serve bridge by having a sanitized (no names or identification) approach to those rulings and AC decisions which can be used to increase the administration of our game. I envision the Code of Practice to provide just such educational material in supporting its provsions. I hope this agrees with Ron's suggestions. I certainly support them. As for qualifying under different rules than you expect to meet in the event you are qualifying for -- this is silly and self defeating. We have had past examples in ACBL (no spades partner? -- differring Alert procedures, etc. ) where the players were not given the opportunity to play by the next higher level's rules. I though we fixed this years ago, but I've been out of the loop since the ITT decided it would determine who should represent ACBL in international competition. I also seriously question whether Ton is able to devine why ACBL feels about Law12C3 the way they do, unless he is privy to more than he is willing to reveal. I, with over 40 years of experience in ACBL and it's LC, would not care to make such rash statements. Kojak -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 10:10:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S09si22283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:09:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S09gt22274 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:09:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HxmK-000EtX-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:13:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:06:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. References: <200007271539.LAA28477@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007271539.LAA28477@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200007271539.LAA28477@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> Perhaps we could strike out 25B and >> alter 25A to read " Except as authorized >> elsewhere in these laws no call in the >> auction may be changed once it is >> completed. Any unauthorized attempt >> to change a call creates unauthorized >> information for the partner of the >> offender but not for his opponents." > >The above text will certainly make David S. happy, but it better come >with a reminder to SO's to check their bidding box regulations. > >What I want -- and want others to do, for that matter -- is to lift the >cards out of the box and then have a careful look to make sure I've got >the one I want and that there isn't another one stuck to it. But if >the call is already "made" when the (wrong) card clears the box, >there's no point checking because the above law prevents changing it >anyway. I'm clumsy enough that I get the wrong call about once or >twice a session but careful enough that there's never any problem. It >doesn't matter whether the call is "not made" or "made but changed >under L25A," but it would matter a great deal under the proposed new >wording. I guess what I'm saying is that manual dexterity should not be >part of the game. > >If you do change 25A, the laws on declarer's play from dummy should >also be changed. No reason for the two to be different in principle. >-- yep I agree this is what my post to this thread is trying to say >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- michael amos -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 10:10:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S09uo22284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:09:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S09kt22276 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:09:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HxmJ-000EtU-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:13:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:04:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. References: <200007271907.MAA26923@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200007271907.MAA26923@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200007271907.MAA26923@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Grabiner wrote: > >> At 9:02 AM +0100 7/27/00, David Burn wrote: >> >Grattan wrote: >> > >> >> Perhaps we could strike out 25B and >> >> alter 25A to read " Except as authorized >> >> elsewhere in these laws no call in the >> >> auction may be changed once it is >> >> completed. Any unauthorized attempt >> >> to change a call creates unauthorized >> >> information for the partner of the >> >> offender but not for his opponents." >> > >> >Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: >> >delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would >> >be perfect. >> >> The first sentence is needed as is for wrong calls pulled out of bidding >> boxes. > >The above doesn't ring true. I think the first half of the first >sentence is needed to allow changes in insufficient bids, calls based >on misinformation, etc. What's needed for wrong calls pulled out of >bidding boxes is a decent definition of when a call is "completed". I >really don't think any SO will pass a regulation saying a call is >"completed" once the bottom edge of the bidding card clears the >bidding box; more likely, a call will be considered "completed" once >it's placed on the table, and (as I explained in my earlier post) I >personally don't have a problem with a rule saying that a call stands >once it's been placed on the table. Spoken bidding is a different >situation, though; I *do* have a problem with a rule saying you can't >change a call as soon as it comes out of your mouth. > > -- Adam > Yes - bizarrely we in England had a very good regulation about bidding boxes at one time - effectively our rule was that a bid was made (complete) when it was placed on the table - a bit like the Law about a card played from Declarer's hand - Now we've gone back to a WBF position that a bid is made when it is taken from the box - I could live with a Law that said when you put a bid down it was made and couldn't be changed but we all know that when we use bidding boxes we try to bid 3S and the 3NT card sticks and comes out as well - so well is the Law on inadvertency understood round here anyway that no on even comments when this happens and the player stuffs the 3NT card back in the box - >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- michael amos -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 10:56:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S0u9X22314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:56:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S0u2t22310 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:56:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.38] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13HyV7-0001Tf-00; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:59:45 +0100 Message-ID: <003601bff82f$80e97c80$265608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> <000801bff646$030276e0$6f8b93c3@pacific> <00b001bff74d$1c43a180$272a1dc2@rabbit> <000b01bff794$d8378180$525608c3@dodona> <001d01bff79c$168902e0$c979073e@D457300> <200007271654.MAA17178@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:02:00 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > Also, by the same reading(2.3a.ii, right?), a takeout double (or is > that not an overcall?) is Brown Sticker, because it does not promise > four cards in a known suit - if ToX is not an "overcall", then 1NT > weak takeout. > +=+ 1NT is interesting; as a weak take-out bid it commonly shows 4 cards in any unbid major, or maybe just in Spades. No problem in those cases. If it can be 3-3-5-2 over a minor, or 3-1-5-4 over a major, it would seem to be a candidate for a Brown Sticker. Takeout double is more clearly than a cue-bid not an overcall - see Bridge Player's Dictionary (which has 'overcall' distinct from 'cue-bid' in one place and 'cue-bid' as an 'overcall in opponents suit' in another). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 13:02:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S328t22369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:02:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S324t22365 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:02:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA11290 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:02:37 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:02:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: [BLML] The 10,000 Commandments (was Correcting Inadvertant Calls) To: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:04:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/07/2000 01:00:23 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ Ton and I are spearheading a movement to screw down every law tightly and reduce the need for appeals committees to think. For that matter we are out to make it less necessary for Directors to think also. But we would not admit to any of this, would we, ton? :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Laws of Bridge are succinct, therefore subject to misinterpretation. Rewriting the Laws to remove all possible anomalies would result in a megapage tome - and then misinterpretations would occur due to not being able to find the relevant Law :-) Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 17:36:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S7YqH22469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:34:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S7Ylt22464 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.38]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000728073837.WEUJ807.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:38:37 +1200 Message-ID: <00ce01bff866$84385460$262e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "ton kooijman" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:44:51 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "ton kooijman" > If S.O. have the power to ban psyches, they also have the power to ban > 1NT-openings ... They do. Well effectively they do since WBF says they have wide ranging powers to ban conventions. Therefore "No conventions over an opening 1NT" is a valid regulation which WBF has specifically given SO the power to make. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 17:36:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S7Z1r22480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S7Yst22471 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.38]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000728073844.WEUU807.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:38:44 +1200 Message-ID: <00cf01bff866$88583ce0$262e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman> <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:48:15 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > 2. A psyche of a conventional bid made without > partnership understanding is legal unless there > is a regulation under 40D to forbid it. An > example of such a regulation currently is the > English regulation forbidding psyches of a > game forcing or nearly game forcing artificial > opening. As a matter of interest, does this include a precision 1C opening? Or is there another regulation dealing with psychs of a precision club? Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 17:36:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6S7Z3s22481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:35:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6S7Ywt22476 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:34:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.38]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000728073847.WEVD807.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:38:47 +1200 Message-ID: <00d001bff866$8aa22ce0$262e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000727150843.00859290@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:24:25 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tony Musgrove" Richard Hills wrote > >I have a habit of psyching opening bids only in first or third seat, at > >favourable vulnerability. > > > >So when I open in second seat, my partner has UI that my opening is > >guaranteed legitimate. > > > >Under L16A, partner has therefore bid as if all my second seat openings are > >psyches. > Tony replied > Aha, I think your second seat action is part of your system, so is AI to all. > Your partner's treating it as a psyche which you have come to expect, > constitutes > a CPU :). > > Tony (Sydney) > And the many players/partnerships that have the understanding that they never psyche is also often a CPU. I certainly don't recall the last time I heard an explaination like: 11-15pts and five spades and we never psych. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 20:54:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SArOA22562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:53:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SAr6t22558 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:53:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge (isp873.canb.dynamite.com.au [202.139.71.111]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA27602; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:55:34 +1000 Message-ID: <008f01bff882$ea345b80$6f478bca@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <006201bff706$59293340$2a1b40d5@oemcomputer> <000c01bff75e$0b19f420$575408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:59:31 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I brought the convention to the attention of the tournament unit before the captains meeting and was present at the captains meeting. The convention: 2diamonds was either a weak 2 hearts or 0-5HCP and 0-2 hearts. The convention is yellow under our regulations but was allowed to be used during the event. There was no agreement sought from captains. Sean Mullamphy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Peter Swensson ; Dany Haimovici Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, > but that horses may not be stolen." > - Marquis of Halifax. > llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > llllllllllllllllll > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Swensson > To: Dany Haimovici ; Grattan Endicott > > Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 2:34 PM > Subject: SV: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche > > When you bid 1H your signal to your partner is 'what ever you like', but you > know for sure that he/she some time have something else, consciously or not, > for you or your opponents it must not be a difference. Please change the > wordings in the Law > > +=+ Hi Peter, > If you noticed, when ton and I reached > the end of our tussle, we were at one in our > view that the word psyche is given too many > meanings, and our wish not to use it for the > situation where the partners agree that the > bid can be something much different from > the common expectation. It is not easy to > find words for this, but it looks as though > ton and I will be together in trying to have > an alteration made in the terminology of > this subject when we get to the 2002/05 > Review of the laws. The Committee does > not want to move until then. ~ G ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 23:08:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SD7Fh22667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:07:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SD74t22663 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:07:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d216.iae.nl [212.61.3.216]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F7FD20F5D for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:10:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <003f01bff895$0739b060$d8033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:07:57 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" ; "David J. Grabiner" Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, > but that horses may not be stolen." > - Marquis of Halifax. > llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David J. Grabiner > To: bridge-laws > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 6:43 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > > > > At 9:02 AM +0100 7/27/00, David Burn wrote: > > >Grattan wrote: > > > > > >> Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > > >> alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > > >> elsewhere in these laws no call in the > > >> auction may be changed once it is > > >> completed. Any unauthorized attempt > > >> to change a call creates unauthorized > > >> information for the partner of the > > >> offender but not for his opponents." > > > > > >Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: > > >delete from "Except" to "laws", and the second sentence. Then it would > > >be perfect. > > > > The first sentence is needed as is for wrong calls pulled out of bidding > > boxes. > > > > The second sentence follows from the normal rules on withdrawn actions, > and > > would already apply with either the old or new L25B penalties. > > > +=+ Ton and I are spearheading a movement > to screw down every law tightly and reduce > the need for appeals committees to think. > For that matter we are out to make it less > necessary for Directors to think also. But > we would not admit to any of this, would we, > ton? :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Less thinking? You know what happens if you do water in the wine! Do not put the cart before the horse. Maybe it is a good idea that movement, but TD's and AC's need more training facitities; material for work shops. Ben ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 28 23:54:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SDsWh22710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:54:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SDsQt22706 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive469.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.201]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA27901 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002801bff89c$a73c5980$c910f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:03:47 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A number of older players of my acquintance maintained that the rule was "in the same breath". Was that language in a still earlier version of the laws? I would certainly agree with the elimination of 25B. But some (very brief) opportunity for a 25A change of inadvertant call should remain. The nonsense that this should be until partner bids should be stricken...if you don't know rightway that you misspoke or pulled a wrong card you are paying insufficient attention to the game and probably deserve to have the chips fall as they may. Inadvertant bids are to some degree akin to cards that become "played" by being dropped or stuck together, except they tend to lack man of the UI problems. Inattention may cause you to forget an agreement, or miscount your values or take a wrong line on a hand. We don't give a free pass there. The player owes his partner and opponents the courtesy of being awake, and of making sure that he bids what he means to bid save for purely vocal or mechanical misspeaks which should be promptly recognised if he has trained himself to be aware of what is happening. (For some of us this may be on a learning curve filled with 1700s or 11 IMP swings, but sobeit.) Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner >> From: Adam Beneschan >> I wouldn't mind a rule that said a spoken bid that is not >> corrected "immediately" (within 1 second, say) is unchangeable, > >Heh. Unless I'm mistaken, that was almost exactly the rule in effect >until 1987. I believe the exact words were "without pause." In 1987 >(or possibly 1975 -- I don't have the lawbook at hand and am not >certain when the change was made), the words were changed to "without >pause for thought," which brings us to where we are today. > >I think the old rule was pretty reasonable. It made allowability of >changing a call an issue of fact, not judgment of the bidder's intent. >But no rule will please everybody or solve all problems. I think the >best we can hope for is to have some instant -- preferably one as easy >to define as possible -- after which the call is a) made, and b) >unchangeable. The instant chosen should allow opportunity for >correction of extraneous factors -- clumsiness or sticky bidding cards >or genuine slips of the tongue -- but not be so delayed that there is >any substantial likelihood that LHO will have acted. At least that's >my view; others will no doubt have different opinions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 00:11:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SEB0t22727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:11:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SEAst22723 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive469.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.201]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA01610; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003101bff89e$f27d91a0$c910f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Michael Schmahl" , "nancy" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Inadvertancy...another example Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:20:12 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sometimes what we say indeed is not what we mean...still it may be right. Take this intended witticism just posted here. While we may debate changes in Law 25, we cannot alter Law 3:16. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Michael Schmahl Michael Schmahl (BS - Math / CompSci, 1998). Resume available on request. > [ Jesus died for your sins! Give him His money's worth! And that is exactly what he asks of you. He gave His life in expiation of your sins so that you might live more abundantly. And He asks that you give your life to Him so that you may live in grace, joy, and love now and forever. Fear not...the Lord has a fine sense of humour. Look how many bridge players he created! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 01:07:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SF7ij22755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:07:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SF7bt22751 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA04194 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06555 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:11:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007281511.LAA06555@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > A number of older players of my acquintance maintained that the rule was "in > the same breath". Was that language in a still earlier version of the laws? First, I was wrong about the date of the change. The "without pause for thought" language came in 1975, not 1987. (L24A; current L23 was added in 1987, moving later laws up by one number.) My mistake will tell you how much credence to give everything else I remember. :-) Or think I remember. However, I believe "in the same breath" was an interpretation, and "without pause" was the actual language. I'll try to check the 1963 Laws this weekend. Maybe someone else has an earlier version to check? There is no doubt "in the same breath" was a very popular belief, whether it was the exact language of the law or not. I don't see any practical difference between the two, anyway. > Inattention may cause you to forget an agreement, or > miscount your values or take a wrong line on a hand. We don't give a free > pass there. Whatever the rule may become, I strongly believe it shouldn't depend on the reason for the original mistake. (This belief will not surprise anybody who knows my dislike for rules that depend on mind reading.) There should be a factual test of some sort; either the change is in time and allowed or it is too late and not allowed (or no changes are allowed at all). That won't prevent all disputes, of course, but at least there won't be any confusion about what the rule is and what the TD needs to determine. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 01:34:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SFXgu22772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:33:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SFXXt22768 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:33:34 +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 13ICCI-0005Zu-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:37:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:36:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies References: <007901bff59c$862f18c0$81b5f1c3@kooijman> <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> <00cf01bff866$88583ce0$262e37d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <00cf01bff866$88583ce0$262e37d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00cf01bff866$88583ce0$262e37d2@laptop>, Wayne Burrows writes >From: "Grattan Endicott" > >> 2. A psyche of a conventional bid made without >> partnership understanding is legal unless there >> is a regulation under 40D to forbid it. An >> example of such a regulation currently is the >> English regulation forbidding psyches of a >> game forcing or nearly game forcing artificial >> opening. > >As a matter of interest, does this include a precision 1C opening? >Or is there another regulation dealing with psychs of a precision club? > >Wayne Burrows > This is not regulated here, but psyching a strong club has a lot of down-side and not a lot of upside, so it doesn't happen much either. -- 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 01:40:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SFeD222785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:40:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SFe6t22781 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e6SFcQp23698 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:38:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200007281538.e6SFcQp23698@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:38:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <50.8b34278.26b21d23@aol.com> from "Schoderb@aol.com" at Jul 27, 2000 07:17:55 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 7/27/00 4:19:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > > > > >Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just > > > >was equity oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. > > > > Words to live by. > > > > > A very good summary by Ton. My main concern is that these > > > AC members will continue to be on ACs and will not realise > > > that in this case they were "wrong, wrong, wrong". And this > > > appeal is not an isolated case. This is not a healthy situation. > > > > > > If I email some quotes from BLML to those AC members who > > > have email, I will probably be in trouble (certainly I will be > > > regarded as a trouble-maker), and they will probably disregard > > > the remarks as being random BLML rubbish. I will think about > > > whether there is anything to be done. > > > > You might want to consider soliciting comments on *all* of the > > AC ruling from people the players will respect. IE something > > along the lines of what the ACBL did. You could go one better and > > also have a commentary on the Laws. > > > > I realize that you probably can't afford to print them, but a > > web site with the rulings plus authoritative commentary on the > > rulings will probably do wonders. > > > Again, I find I can't keep my mitts off the keys. I think that it is > not in the interest of our game for people who are in positions which > are recognized as "authoritative" or "important" to make such strong > judgements without all the facts as Ton has done in this thread. Actually (and I realize I should have said so plainly) I had in mind strong players with an interest in the Laws. This isn't mean as a slap at (to pick one name) Ton. But I think it moderately clear that a comment from (say) Patrick Huang would carry greater weight. Perhaps I'm wrong. Still, an authoritatove comment on the Laws -- what they say and what they're meant to mean (alas not always quite the same thing) would be of tremendous value. Even so, your point about having all the facts is a good one. And one thing I've noticed since the various AC books started to come out is a marked increase in the quality of AC write-ups. If the only thing that came out of a similar initiative in Australia was better AC write-ups, I think they'd be well ahead of the game. > You might find yourself in complete disagreement about an AC ruling, > and then you should stop to think about the effect it has to publicly > state your strong opposition. Would it not serve better to find out > ALL the details, Clearly yes. > educate the AC members if they were indeed wrong, Peter Gill's concern -- a valid one I think -- is that the AC membership would not prove receptive to education. That's why I suggested getting commentary on all AC rulings. Don't just pick the ones you disagree with. The latter makes it look like you've got an axe to grind, the former (I hope) would be taken as an objective look at the state of AC rulings in Australia. > take the time to investigate, ask, recommend, cajole, and improve > the AC process, than to blatantly state "wrong, wrong, wrong?" No question, shrill criticism (and I don't mean to imply that Ton's reply was such. His was a carefully thought out, clearly worded dissent. The "wrong, wrong, wrong" was -- in context -- an important part. Sadly, taken out of context it could be unproductive. (Some snips) > To wave the flags of rightousness in the face of ACs only serves to keep > those people best qualified to serve on them from being "available" > if called upon. Who needs the headache? That's a valid point. THat's why I proposed a review of all AC rulings. Still, I'm thinking back to some of the reviews I've read in the AC books. More than a few of the responses contain biting sarcasm that's not really productive. Amusing to read in some cases, but a real pain to people who are a) volunteering their time and b) clearly making a good faith effort to render the correct ruling. That they (pick frequency -- I think occasional is correct) get it seriously wrong is a problem that Peter (and of course others) is trying to address. I guess a valid point for Peter to consider is how the people you want on the ACs will react to being second-guessed. Maybe it would be better if prospective AC members were told of any such project in advance. The point is that what we all want is the highest quality AC rulings rather than a few laughs at the occasional howler. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 01:52:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SFqFu22802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:52:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SFq8t22798 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:52:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10491; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:52:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200007281552.IAA10491@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:11:09 PDT." <200007281511.LAA06555@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:52:28 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Craig Senior" > > Inattention may cause you to forget an agreement, or > > miscount your values or take a wrong line on a hand. We don't give a free > > pass there. > > Whatever the rule may become, I strongly believe it shouldn't depend on > the reason for the original mistake. (This belief will not surprise > anybody who knows my dislike for rules that depend on mind reading.) > There should be a factual test of some sort; either the change is in > time and allowed or it is too late and not allowed (or no changes are > allowed at all). That won't prevent all disputes, of course, but at > least there won't be any confusion about what the rule is and what the > TD needs to determine. I agree, at least in this case; but the principle that we're justified in penalizing inattention (while OTOH we shouldn't penalize clumsiness or other purely mechanical errors) should guide us in determining what factual test to establish. I don't think Craig or anyone else was suggesting that we try to determine _at_ _the_ _table_ why a particular player pulled the wrong card or bidding card. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 02:06:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SG6j822821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:06:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SG6Zt22817 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:06:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA07479; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA06669; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:10:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007281610.MAA06669@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > I don't think Craig or anyone else was > suggesting that we try to determine _at_ _the_ _table_ why a > particular player pulled the wrong card or bidding card. The problem, of course, is that the current L25A may require the TD to make precisely that determination. (You may recall that the determination about "inadvertent" was the whole focus of the Vancouver case. The AC forgot to consider the small :-) matter of whether the correction was in time.) As someone else mentioned, current bid box regulations in many jurisdictions (WBF, EBU, ACBL at least) would not necessarily be satisfactory if L25A were changed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 04:17:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SIH7C22882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:17:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SIGut22878 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.85] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13IEkF-000KH1-00; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:20:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bff8c0$e3d416c0$555408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200007281511.LAA06555@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:22:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > First, I was wrong about the date of the change. The "without pause > for thought" language came in 1975, not 1987. (L24A; current L23 was > added in 1987, moving later laws up by one number.) My mistake will > tell you how much credence to give everything else I remember. :-) > Or think I remember. > > However, I believe "in the same breath" was an interpretation, and > "without pause" was the actual language. I'll try to check the 1963 > Laws this weekend. Maybe someone else has an earlier version to > check? > +=+ 1963: "A player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call, but only if he does so without pause. " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 05:55:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SJsuY22922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:54:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SJskt22918 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 05:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.44] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13IGFp-000NSr-00; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:57:09 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01bff8ce$6661cc60$2c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <50.8b34278.26b21d23@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:51:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > --------------- \x/ -------------- > -- > Again, I find I can't keep my mitts off the keys. > I think that it is not in the interest of our game > for people who are in positions which are recognized > as "authoritative" or "important" to make such strong > judgements without all the facts > +=+ A salutary reminder, Kojak, to us all. For a lifetime I have prefaced replies to enquiries with a caveat that, having heard of a matter from only one point of view, anything I say relates to the situation only as it is described by the enquirer and not necessarily to the true facts if they turn out to be misrepresented, distorted, or incomplete. I am conscious that we tend not to make this clear when we discuss matters brought to our attention. Perhaps we should all write the caveat into our signatures. It is also to be expected that if our informant is a party involved this should be made known, so that we can be cautious of the inherent bias of those who may be writing with sympathy for their own positions. +=+ > --------------------- \x/ ----------------- > BLML -- discuss what ever you like. Name names, > posture, declaim, pontificate as you desire, but you > would better serve bridge by having a sanitized (no > names or identification) approach to those rulings > and AC decisions which can be used to increase > the administration of our game. I envision the Code > of Practice to provide just such educational > material in supporting its provsions. > +=+ Certainly it is the ambition, I understand, that the CoP and its supplementary 'jurisprudence' shall give a lead to recommended practice. We are on the threshold, I hope, of approving in Maastricht the first compilation of supplementary material. It remains to be seen what the Lausanne Group will make of the substances I have collected. I trust your fair vision may not be spoiled. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 06:00:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SK0lO22938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:00:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from server06.gw.total-web.net (qmailr@server06.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6SK0et22934 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:00:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17998 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2000 20:04:16 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server06.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2000 20:04:16 -0000 Message-ID: <017401bff8ce$6763ac00$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <200007281511.LAA06555@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000d01bff8c0$e3d416c0$555408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:59:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I seem to remember a Bridge World Editorial from many years ago where Edgar hypothesized about a player who might take a long time to actually make the correction after several(?) minutes of apologizing. This, I believe, was his rationale for the wording change. This situation should be covered in any revision. Cheers.............................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Steve Willner ; Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, > but that horses may not be stolen." > - Marquis of Halifax. > llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Willner > To: > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 4:11 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > > > > First, I was wrong about the date of the change. The "without pause > > for thought" language came in 1975, not 1987. (L24A; current L23 was > > added in 1987, moving later laws up by one number.) My mistake will > > tell you how much credence to give everything else I remember. :-) > > Or think I remember. > > > > However, I believe "in the same breath" was an interpretation, and > > "without pause" was the actual language. I'll try to check the 1963 > > Laws this weekend. Maybe someone else has an earlier version to > > check? > > > +=+ 1963: "A player may substitute his intended call > for an inadvertent call, but only if he does so without > pause. " ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 06:07:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SK7DX22951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:07:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SK77t22947 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:07:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.139] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13IGSw-000NtH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:10:42 +0100 Message-ID: <002201bff8d0$4ad7b5c0$8b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Marv Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:12:26 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 06:45:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive44i.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.146]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18722; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002a01bff8d5$72dd6e20$9210f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Marv Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:50:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv has been uns*bscr*bed for several months...he was getting swamped. He still has great interest in any action or interpretation of the laws coming out of WBFlc and I have forwarded a few posts to him. He was well as of a couple of weeks ago, and actively involved in West Coast (US) bridge. Craig Senior > >Grattan Endicott+=+ Does anyone know what happened > to Marv? I hope he wasn't caught > counterfeiting. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 07:35:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SLZCK23004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:35:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SLZ6t23000 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:35:07 +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 OAA15213; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:35:21 -0700 Message-Id: <200007282135.OAA15213@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Marv In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:50:20 PDT." <002a01bff8d5$72dd6e20$9210f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:35:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: > Marv has been uns*bscr*bed for several months...he was getting swamped. He > still has great interest in any action or interpretation of the laws coming > out of WBFlc and I have forwarded a few posts to him. He was well as of a > couple of weeks ago, and actively involved in West Coast (US) bridge. He's still been posting on rec.games.bridge. Also, I played against him in a regional just a few weeks ago, although I didn't realize it until later and unfortunately didn't get a chance to introduce myself. :( -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 07:41:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SLfHg23020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:41:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc2.occa.home.com [24.2.8.66]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SLfBt23016 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:41:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by mail.rdc2.occa.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20000728214449.ZWQM24297.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:44:49 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:40:24 -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: <200007281538.e6SFcQp23698@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Even so, your point about having all the facts is a good one. And one > thing I've noticed since the various AC books started to come out > is a marked increase in the quality of AC write-ups. Thanks - glad you think we are making progress.. :-) > > Peter Gill's concern -- a valid one I think -- is that the AC membership > would not prove receptive to education. We held a seminar a couple years ago and dissected some appeals cases. Most NAC members attended and the discussion was helpful... There are many expert level players who are humble enough to admit that this stuff is not that easy and are willing to spend a couple hours to hopefully improve their skills. Wish we had them more often... > > That's why I suggested getting commentary on all AC rulings. Don't > just pick the ones you disagree with. The latter makes it look like > you've got an axe to grind, the former (I hope) would be taken as > an objective look at the state of AC rulings in Australia. That has been our policy for the ACBL NABC casebooks. No matter how simple a case may seem, the panelists always have something interesting to say. > > That's a valid point. THat's why I proposed a review of all AC rulings. > Still, I'm thinking back to some of the reviews I've read in the AC > books. More than a few of the responses contain biting sarcasm that's > not really productive. Amusing to read in some cases, but a real > pain to people who are a) volunteering their time and b) clearly > making a good faith effort to render the correct ruling. And everybody appreciates that. In the 6 years I have been involved we have only had one AC member that was upset about someting that was said. We don't want to edit and change what someone has said. Everybody on the NAC knows well that it is a dirty, thankless job :-) and no matter how a case is decided there will be someone out there that strongly disagrees. After all, this is pretty dry stuff and difficult to make interesting to the casual reader... Rich Colker does an absolutely fabulous job and we are lucky to have him. > > The point is that what we all want is the highest quality AC > rulings rather than a few laughs at the occasional howler. If you can't laugh at yourself and learn when you commit a "howler" then this isn't the right kind of activity for you to participate in... :-) Linda > > -- > RNJ > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 08:01:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SM1km23048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:01:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SM1dt23044 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:01:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA26846 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07151 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:05:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007282205.SAA07151@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > For a lifetime > I have prefaced replies to enquiries with a caveat that, > having heard of a matter from only one point of view, > anything I say relates to the situation only as it is > described by the enquirer and not necessarily to the > true facts if they turn out to be misrepresented, > distorted, or incomplete. I *hope* this qualification is obvious to all BLML readers, not only for responses from recognized authorities like Grattan, Ton, and Kojak but for all responses from anybody. Nobody can give an opinion on anything but the facts that are known. A general reminder like the above is probably a good thing from time to time, even for BLML, and all of us may need to take more care in writing for other audiences. It would be a terrible loss if the "names" stopped posting to BLML for fear their comments might be misconstrued, and I see no reason to burden them here with having to qualify every word they write. When they write official decisions, of course they have to be more careful; no surprise there! On a point Grattan raised earlier, we should *assume* that all posts are personal opinion unless explicitly labelled as having official standing. That is just standard netiquette. If a particular post contains a mix of both, then the poster has to clarify which is which, but repeated "This is my personal opinion, not an official statement," is tedious and not necessary. Avoiding personal attacks is always desirable, of course, but saying a particular decision or judgment is wrong should not normally be construed as a personal attack. Careful phrasing can help, and general statements like "So and so is an idiot," are not a good idea, but we shouldn't be so afraid of offending someone that we give up posting. If one finds he has accidentally gone too far, an apology will usually fix things. So go ahead, folks, have at it! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 08:15:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SMExM23065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SMErt23061 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:14:53 +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 SAA27243 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07169 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:18:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007282218.SAA07169@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Bill Bickford" > I seem to remember a Bridge World Editorial from many years ago where Edgar > hypothesized about a player who might take a long time to actually make the > correction after several(?) minutes of apologizing. This, I believe, was > his rationale for the wording change. This situation should be covered in > any revision. Right. I remember it too. The editorial must have been around the time of the 1975 Laws release. Kaplan's example was something like "One spa... Oh, wait. I mean... This is terrible, how awful..." etc. Under the current L25A, if the original intention was 1H, the correction should be allowed even if the word "heart" doesn't actually emerge for some while. If you are going to cover the above in the laws and not in SO regulations, I think "...correct or attempt to correct without pause," does the job. (The words 'for thought' being deleted but 'attempt' being kept.) Also, you would probably want to delete the requirement that the original call be inadvertent. An alternative approach is to say that a call is not "made" or "completed" until some moment late enough to allow reasonable scope for correction. "Laid on the table" might be an example for bidding cards, but I'm not sure what you would use for spoken bidding. (Maybe a distinct pause after the call?) For either bidding method and for others (e.g. written bidding), definition of the critical moment could be left to NCBO's or SO's, although that risks having distinctly different rules in different areas. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 08:24:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SMNqU23078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:23:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SMNjt23074 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:23:46 +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 SAA27557 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07182 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:27:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007282227.SAA07182@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Linda Trent" [Good points snipped. I, for one, am very grateful to the people who do the work.] > If you can't laugh at yourself and learn when you commit a "howler" then > this isn't the right kind of activity for you to participate in... :-) By 'this' I take it Linda is referring to "bridge." Most of us, alas, have all too much opportunity to put her advice into practice. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 08:34:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6SMYM123090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:34:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from legend.idworld.net (legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6SMYGt23086 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (unverified [209.142.71.108]) by legend.idworld.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:38:11 -0500 Message-ID: <39820B54.7C832B61@txdirect.net> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:38:12 -0500 From: Albert Lochli Reply-To: biigal@idworld.net Organization: D16ACBL Internet Coordinator X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] San Antonio Appeals Casebook Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL has just posted the 1999 San Antonio Appeals casebook on line. It is at: http://209.45.144.70/members/Casebooks/99SanAntonio.asp in the members area. All 45 San Antonio and two WITT appeals are presented. It joins the previous posted appeals from 1999 Vancouver, 1998 Chicago, and 1998 Orlando (all accessed from: ACBL Members page). -- Albert "BiigAl" Lochli biigal@txdirect.net-(210) 829-4274- PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - http://www.acbl-d16.org Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblCLUBS/ Bureau Chief Zone 2 & Reporter - e-Bridge http://www.e-bridgemaster.com/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 17:04:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T6nBQ23288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:49:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6T6n7t23284 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:49:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6T6qkK07879 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:52:46 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:52:45 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) In-Reply-To: <200007271654.MAA17178@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Michael Farebrother wrote: > Actually, I am more amused by the fact that AFAICT, "Roth-Stone" is a > HUM - "A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally > accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold > values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand" (defined > as a hand containing one card of each rank). Amusingly the systems regulations for the recent New Zealand nationals included the stipulation that an opening suit bid at the one level that did not promise a specific suit of at least four cards was deemed Highly Unusual. This was most amusing to those of us playing a genuinely unusual system - we could tell our LOL/LOM opponents that their Standard American 3+ 1D opening was HUM and illegal (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). Mark Abraham -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 17:52:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T7q8T23323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:52:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6T7q0t23315 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:52:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13IRT5-0005Zs-00; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: <004101bff932$c3bd3020$c25908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Mark Abraham" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:55:00 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Michael Farebrother wrote: > > Amusingly the systems regulations for the recent New Zealand nationals > included the stipulation that an opening suit bid at the one level that > did not promise a specific suit of at least four cards was deemed Highly > Unusual. This was most amusing to those of us playing a genuinely unusual > system - we could tell our LOL/LOM opponents that their Standard American > 3+ 1D opening was HUM and illegal (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). > > Mark Abraham > +=+ Now I doubt very much that a three plus card opening bid in a suit on a hand that is at least 8 HCP is subject to regulation. Such a bid is by definition 'not conventional'. Of course it would be legal to make it a condition of the use of any convention that it may not be used in an auction in which the side has made a suit opening bid that could by agreement be made on fewer than four cards in the named suit. [ :-)) Is this what they did? :-)) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ P.S. 'LOL/LOM' - LOLAM? - LOL&M? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 17:52:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T7q6n23322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:52:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6T7pwt23314 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13IRT3-0005Zs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:55:33 +0100 Message-ID: <004001bff932$c2c16b00$c25908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Perplexed parser Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:28:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e6T8jOK08471 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:45:24 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:45:22 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) In-Reply-To: <004101bff932$c3bd3020$c25908c3@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > > Amusingly the systems regulations for the recent New Zealand nationals > > included the stipulation that an opening suit bid at the one level that > > did not promise a specific suit of at least four cards was deemed Highly > > Unusual. This was most amusing to those of us playing a genuinely unusual > > system - we could tell our LOL/LOM opponents that their Standard American > > 3+ 1D opening was HUM and illegal (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). > > > > Mark Abraham > > > +=+ Now I doubt very much that a three plus card opening bid > in a suit on a hand that is at least 8 HCP is subject to regulation. > Such a bid is by definition 'not conventional'. True indeed, but this subtlety was lost on the NZCBA it appears. Below is a quote from the first Daily Bulletin (which appeared to be the definitive version of Systems & Alert regualations) - > A system containing one or more of these features is considered HUM. > > A pass in the opening position which does not imply the absence of the qualifications for an opening bid at the one level and the player who passed will or may hold more than 12 hcp > > An opening bid at the one level which does not meet the rule of 18 (number of points + number of cards in the 2 longest suits) > > An opening 1NT which either could be less than 8 hcp or where the possibility of a singleton is more than a rare exception. If 1NT promises at least 17 hcp then any distribution is permitted > > An opening suit bid at the 1 level which does not promise at least one specified suit of at least 4 cards. This restriction does not apply to opening 1C or 1D bids in strong club systems > > An opening bid at the 2 level which does not promise at least one specified suit of at least 4 cards. Multi 2C or 2D opening bids showing either (a) a weak and with a major (at least 5 cards) or (b) a normal or nearly normal 2NT opener, or bids which promise at least 16 hcp are exceptions to this rule. > > Of course it would be legal to make it a condition of the > use of any convention that it may not be used in an auction > in which the side has made a suit opening bid that could by > agreement be made on fewer than four cards in the named > suit. [ :-)) Is this what they did? :-)) ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Err, follow-ups were not considered :) Nice justification though... > P.S. 'LOL/LOM' - LOLAM? - LOL&M? LOL/LOM = Little Old Lady / Little Old Man Mark Abraham -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9eq223426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9ePt23385 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id fa153639 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:57:52 +1000 Message-ID: <016d01bff940$36bf67c0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> <001e01bff4f5$b5ef7fc0$955608c3@dodona> Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:57:11 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well there should not be such a law/rule. Anyone with any sense knows that the "psyche" is only useful for its surprise value. If you psyche all the time, your partners will desert you and 50% of the time, when its your hand or they are going off in a freely bid slam or game, you will turn a good board into a bad one. It is a long term losing proposition - but occasionally, it gets you a top, and the opposition will always wonder next time.... regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" ; "Noel & Pamela" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: 24 July 2000 7:06 Subject: Re: psyches > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "If you don't know where you are going > you'll probably end up somewhere else." > - The Peter Principle. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ton kooijman > To: Grattan Endicott ; Noel & Pamela > ; Bridge Laws > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: psyches > > > > > > > > > >> Can you tell us with what law in hand they might do that? > > >> > > >+=+ No law; just the means to exclude the player who > > > psyches +=+ > > > > My question was with what law anybody is entitled to ban psyches? I don't > > think it is in my book (and don't make a joke about that, I am using the > one > > I received from you some months ago). > > > > This is a serious subject and if we do not agree how can we convince > > anybody? > > > > ton > > > +=+ There is something missing here, what I am > saying is not getting across. There is longstanding > advice from the highest quarters that says you > cannot ban a person from psyching but you can > exclude a person who psyches from your game. > That is the way psyches are banned in some > places right now. That is what I am pointing > to. It happens when there is a general consensus > more or less that psyching is not wanted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9f5Y23437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eSt23387 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ja153643 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:57:58 +1000 Message-ID: <017101bff940$3ae6f160$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <397C26F4.205F1B98@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:40:31 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No - partnership experience is AI, PROVIDED you tell the opponents at the appropriate time. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 24 July 2000 9:22 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches, yet another try > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > > > > >Well, it's a call, legal (in the sense of not being > > >insufficient), and there's nothing else. > > > > Partner's experience with you is not a call. It may be based on calls > > you have made, but it is not a call. > > > > If partnership experience has now become UI, we should stop > this game, because every single board will be scored > Av-/Av-. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fAQ23442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eSt23391 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ga153640 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:57:54 +1000 Message-ID: <016e01bff940$37c2ce00$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> <001f01bff4f5$b6eb44e0$955608c3@dodona> Subject: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:05:20 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Perfect explanation. And if you do it too often with a partner even without discussing it then it becomes a conventional bid and systemic. If you don't announce it then you have CPA and leave yourself open to accusations of "fielding". And if it is such that it is regulated where you are playing it, then there is no doubt in my mind that the next time it happens and someone notices, a cheating accusation is on the cards... regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" ; "Noel & Pamela" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: 24 July 2000 7:34 Subject: Re: psyches > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "If you don't know where you are going > you'll probably end up somewhere else." > - The Peter Principle. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ton kooijman > To: Grattan Endicott ; > Noel & Pamela ; > Bridge Laws > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 9:11 PM > Subject: Re: psyches > > > > It says it comes within the > > > powers of the SO to regulate. > > > > > > The WBF, > > > for example, does regulate such action > > > - it provides that where the expectation > > > is that psyches will be made randomly, but > > > it is understood that if one does occur in > > > a given situation it will be of a specified > > > type, this is allowed subject to this being > > > fully stated on the convention card; it adds > > > that an understanding that psychic bids > > > are expected or likely in specific situations > > > (or where they are protected by system) > > > is a Brown Sticker understanding and > > > therefore prohibited in some events, such > > > as the Round Robin in Maastricht. As an > > > example it quotes third in hand psyches > > > at favourable vulnerability where a player is > > > expected to open the bidding on anything > > > at all. > > > > Once more: the use of the word psyche here is confusing, because > > this description tells that it is part of the system, and yes we can > > regulate that. > > > > [I would think another likely candidate > > > might be: 1 plum - double - 1 psychic where > > > as a matter of partnership understanding > > > or (Law 75B) implicit agreement, naming a > > > suit does not show the suit in conformity with > > > the prescription of what is non-conventional]. > > > +=+ > > >> > +=+ What I say is that here is a WBF regulation > based on Law 40D which applies to partnership > understandings about violations of announced system > where these understandings are added to qualify the > primary system - what many people commonly > refer to as psyches. When such an announcement is > made, I think we are both saying it may be regulated. > Regulation of it may include prohibition. > So if you say my One Spade bid is normally > 11+ HCP and five or more Spades but from time to > time I make it on even 0 HCP - and maybe not > having a Spade suit - that partnership understanding > about the weak version may be prohibited under > Law 40D. Or for that matter it may be regarded > as Brown Sticker and prohibited in certain events. > The WBF does it, so it must be legitimate. > When something may be regulated the SO > may prescribe whatever it wishes about frequency. > It may say that even if you only do it three times > a year, if you announce this as a partnership > understanding we forbid it. ~ G ~ +=+ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fAt23441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eSt23390 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ia153642 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:57:57 +1000 Message-ID: <017001bff940$3a0cbe00$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer><00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> <8MiK3+AXCOf5EwC1@probst.demon.co.uk> <001a01bff60b$1c049a00$725608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:38:05 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sounds like a pretty good philosophy of life to me! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" ; Sent: 25 July 2000 5:05 Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "If you don't know where you are going > you'll probably end up somewhere else." > - The Peter Principle. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:34 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] psyches > > > > It would be a pity to shoot the messenger or cause him to be shot ... > > one would then have no line of communication. Stick with us boys, even > > if the ride is a bit rough. cheers john > > -- > +=+ I think there is more to be learnt from > disagreement than from platitudinous > uniformity. I do not see a ride as 'rough' > just because we do not say 'how right' each > minute of the day. We have different > personalities, come from differing bridge > backgrounds, have gone with the wind, flung > roses riotously with the throng, cried for > madder music and for stronger wine, so > why should we not enjoy the feasting > and the dance? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fDe23443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eXt23393 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ma153646 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:58:04 +1000 Message-ID: <017401bff940$3e0373a0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <050b01bff6a3$22b2ab60$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:04:24 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ok, it's Yellow, but who cares. It's always weak. I'd be much more worried if there was a strong option as any action by me could easily get jumped on. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: 26 July 2000 11:44 Subject: [BLML] Partnership Agreement To Psyche > At this week's Australian Interstate Teams Championship, > a pair submitted their system with (I think): > > 2D Opening Bid: either a weak two in hearts, or a random > psyche with about 0-5 points. > > The administrators ruled (I think) that although this bid makes > their system technically Yellow under Australian regulations > (i.e. lose seating rights etc), they would allow the bid without > declaring it "Yellow" if: > (1) all seven opposing captains agreed, and > (2) the pair submitted an A4 page clearly and fully documenting > the types of hands and vulnerabilities on which they do and do > not use the Agreed Psyche. > > I can't help wondering what would happen if such a bid was > submitted in a major event of the WBF, ACBL, EBU or FFB? > Would it be banned outright? > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fEW23444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eXt23394 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id la153645 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:58:02 +1000 Message-ID: <017301bff940$3cde7ba0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20000725153459.00a9c8a0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:00:00 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, it matters not who asked on these cards - redouble is often nebulous and may or not have promised Spades, which East has. South is stuffed as soon as North gives MI. I can't believe the AC decision. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bley" To: "Peter Gill" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: 25 July 2000 11:41 Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > At 11:17 26.07.2000 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > > >From the current Australian Nationals: > >Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) > >i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > > > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > > A84 > > KJ953 > > 10 > > Q543 > >76 K1095 > >Q10874 A2 > >7543 KQ986 > >86 107 > > QJ32 > > 6 > > A52 > > AKJ92 > > Diamond jack is missing here (two d5 here instead). But that is not so > important... > > > >West North East South > > 1C > >P 1H Dbl Redbl > >2D 4H P P > >Dbl P P 4NT > >P 5C All Pass > > > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > >5C made 11 tricks. > > > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > >to -300 in 4HX. > > > >Appellants (NS) claim: > >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > >something that would have happened without the question." > > Well even if E asked only for this reason, he has every right to ask I > think. Dont see any rule here which forbids asking a call. > So says Law 40B: > > B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited > A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call > or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. > > In other words: the opps has every right to ask. The mistake in this hand > is made by NS. THEY made a systemical mixup. > > >Decision: > >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > This score is really weird IMHO. > > >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > >think of the appeal? > > I understand the appeal and the bad feelings about this but to me the > directors decision seems just right. > > > Cheers > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fF123445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eYt23395 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ka153644 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:58:00 +1000 Message-ID: <017201bff940$3be2b680$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <03fb01bff69f$48ca1760$5be236cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:51:25 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Without looking at the subsequent e-mails, I would say that the AC had enjoyed a little too much of the Brisbane sunshine! Not to mention the beer. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: 26 July 2000 11:17 Subject: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > From the current Australian Nationals: > Australian Open Butler Trials (Final Stage) > i.e. all players are among Australia's best. > > Dlr S, Nil Vul > A84 > KJ953 > 10 > Q543 > 76 K1095 > Q10874 A2 > 7543 KQ986 > 86 107 > QJ32 > 6 > A52 > AKJ92 > > West North East South > 1C > P 1H Dbl Redbl > 2D 4H P P > Dbl P P 4NT > P 5C All Pass > > Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > 5C made 11 tricks. > > The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > to -300 in 4HX. > > Appellants (NS) claim: > "The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > something that would have happened without the question." > > Decision: > The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > > PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > think of the appeal? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:41:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fHc23446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9eSt23392 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ha153641 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:57:55 +1000 Message-ID: <016f01bff940$390957c0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> <397AD6AA.B863E552@village.uunet.be> <002101bff4f5$b8e14880$955608c3@dodona> <002801bff4ff$f6ba3720$826860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:14:34 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And you expect me to believe that, over the years, when it goes 1C opening by the opposition, 2H overcall by you, and about once every 2 months or so, you don't actually have ANY hearts, that she won't remember it, just a little bit and bid accordingly? (eg NOT bid 5H over their 4S when she has 5 hearts herself or the like). If my Bridge partner didn't get a little wary after a few disasters and/or triumphs in this situation, then they are playing the wrong game. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 24 July 2000 9:44 Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ We are getting closer. But this is not > > exactly my position. Most understandings > > about 'psyching' initial action are subject > > to regulation under 40D and may be > > treated like any other illegal agreement. > > But only if there is an agreement to psych. > > It must be possible to psych (even repeatedly) with having any partnership > understanding or agreement to do so and then such psychs can never be > subject to regulation. > > I know that my wife would never agree to allow me to psych and she tells me > so whenever I do (only occasionally) and no doubt she would very vocally > tell an appeal committee or director that she never agreed that we(me) would > psych and would be most offended (as I believe she should be) if the > committee or director then ruled that we in fact did have an agreement. > > Wayne Burrows > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 19:49:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fO023447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9egt23420 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id oa153648 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:58:07 +1000 Message-ID: <017601bff940$401367e0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:30:08 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And I'd be upset too! East can NEVER bid 6C here after the MI unless he is on the way to 6H or 6S and West must bid that in this sequence after 6C. At least, that's what I would rule. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 26 July 2000 3:58 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky??? At a local club game, the following bidding took place. (I do not have the hands and feel they are irrelevant in this situation): N E S W 1C 2C * 2D 4S * when next bidder asked for explanation, he was told D 6C all pass Michaels for the majors as shown on the CC. Partner of the leader won the opening heart lead and a heart was returned which declarer trumped. At this point the Director was called. After the bidding was explained to the Director, he looked at the hands and told them to play then call him back after the hand was over. 6 Clubs made. When the Director returned to the table he stated the bid would be allowed to stand. The non-offending pair had a combined total points of about 30 counting distribution. The 2 D bidder would have bid hearts had he known the 2C bid was incorrect. Declarer did admit that he had forgotten they were playing Michaels and was showing a strong Club hand. The NOS called for a committee and after the smoke cleared the committee allowed the result to stand stating that after the double East was allowed to bid again and to correct to 6C. N/S were upset because they did not have a chance to bid their heart suit and would have competed to 6 hearts had they known the original bid was not Michaels (showing 5-5 in the majors as explained.) The traveler showed most were in 6H down one. Needless to say, N/S feel more than disappointed about the ruling and committee result and I told them I would ask about this ruling. (I was not the director involved). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 20:04:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fU223449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9egt23421 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id na153647 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:58:05 +1000 Message-ID: <017501bff940$3ed47f40$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: <200007251453.e6PErR521231@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:19:27 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And what does that say about the rewards for honesty! That AC was giving players a perfectly good reason to forget about active ethics - they don't pay! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: 26 July 2000 12:53 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyching tendencies and Systems policies > Tim West-meads writes: > > > > In-Reply-To: <009c01bff5ca$42ed2560$df5908c3@dodona> > > Grattan wrote: > > > > agreed. > > > > > 3. A psyche of any kind of bid which is made > > > with a partnership understanding that is not > > > announced is illegal under the laws and may be > > > > With exceptions. For example if playing against opponents who > > are known to be competent (or due to the nature of the competition > > are reasonably expected to be competent) one is always permitted to > > make "common psyches" (eg Ferdinand's, joke NTs, fake cue-bids etc.) > > Competent opponents should all be aware of these. Put another way > > opponents who are unaware of these simple mechanisms can hardly be > > called competent. > > The was a famous ruling in the ACBL a while back. Robinson-Woolsey > (playing in I believe the Blue Ribbon pairs, one of the strongest pairs > games in the ACBL) were ruled to be playing an illegal convention > (the comic NT) after one of them overcalled 1NT and his partner alerted > (because they had a partnership tendancy to psyche this call.) > > There was no issue of partner's having fielded the psyche and they > had no bidding structure to uncover the psyche. > > Effectively what the AC ruling said was that you can't agree to > psyche 1NT overcalls. > > One of the really interesting things is that had the overcall > not been alerted it would almost certainly have passed without > comment. > > -- > RNJ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 20:19:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6T9fOg23448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:41:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6T9egt23419 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id pa153649 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:58:09 +1000 Message-ID: <017701bff940$40f53c60$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:31:59 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Especially in Australia where you may only ask about a SPECIFIC bid at your first opportunity, otherwise you must ask about the whole auction. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "Peter Gill" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: 26 July 2000 4:10 Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > At 11:17 AM +1000 7/26/00, Peter Gill wrote: > > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > > A84 > > KJ953 > > 10 > > Q543 > >76 K1095 > >Q10874 A2 > >7543 KQ986 > >86 107 > > QJ32 > > 6 > > A52 > > AKJ92 > > > >West North East South > > 1C > >P 1H Dbl Redbl > >2D 4H P P > >Dbl P P 4NT > >P 5C All Pass > > > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > >5C made 11 tricks. > > > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > >to -300 in 4HX. > > > >Appellants (NS) claim: > >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > >something that would have happened without the question." > > There was a case at the Albuquerque World Championships in which the AC > condemned "randomly asking questions in the hopes of catching a fish." > This applied to a pair which asked several questions in a non-competitive > auction when it could not have had any reason to ask, and happened to get > an incorrect answer to one of them, then claimed UI. > > But I don't see how this can apply here. I do not believe there is > anything wrong with asking about the meaning of the opponents' last bid > when you intend to pass this round but need the meaning in order to > understand the auction later. A common sitution is an inquiry over an > artificial overcall after partner's 1NT call. > > I wouldn't normally invoke the rule even after a single question asked at > the wrong time. The penalty for asking about a call when you have no need > to ask is the UI to partner, as he must assume you do have some interest in > the call. If you ask about a 5C Blackwood response and then pass, you risk > an adjusted score if partner leads clubs. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 21:51:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TBoRq23548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:50:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TBoKt23544 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-187.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.187]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17176 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:53:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3981732C.CEF1129B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:49:00 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002601bff813$5402cd00$a05608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > +=+ I believe this is a false reading of the Systems Policy. > The Systems Policy refers to 'overcalls' and , in my view > (but I think also in the view of John Wignall since he has > made no comment about an earlier exchange I had on > the point, not on blml), these are distinguished from > 'Cue Bids in Opponent's Suit'. Unless John comes to > the surface quickly and says something else I think we > may act upon the understanding that an 'overcall' is > not in the denomination specified by opponent. > I base my view on the Bridge Player's Dictionary; if > you look at 'Overcall' you will find that it refers to > 'other measures available' and quotes 'Cue Bid in > Opponents Suit' as one of them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Perhaps one problem though : In my system (and no doubt in many others), 1Cl-2Cl is natural. (we use 1Cl-2Di to show the majors). This is not a cue-bid. Is it an overcall ? 1Cl-3Cl shows spades and diamonds. Is that an overcall or a cue-bid ? Or something else ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 22:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TCst323584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:54:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TCsmt23575 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:54:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-51.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.51]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8928F36B9F; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:58:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009101bff95b$d4143ee0$33b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Mark Abraham" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:38:13 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Saturday, July 29, 2000 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) >On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> >> Grattan Endicott> >> > Amusingly the systems regulations for the recent New Zealand nationals >> > included the stipulation that an opening suit bid at the one level that >> > did not promise a specific suit of at least four cards was deemed Highly >> > Unusual. This was most amusing to those of us playing a genuinely unusual >> > system - we could tell our LOL/LOM opponents that their Standard American >> > 3+ 1D opening was HUM and illegal (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). >> > >> An opening suit bid at the 1 level which does not promise at least one >specified suit of at least 4 cards. This restriction does not apply to >opening 1C or 1D bids in strong club systems >> > Mark Abraham Is this the brave country where once the famous fertilizers came from? I can assure you that this regulation about at least 4 cards would cause unsurmountable problems in my country, really nobody being able to play her/his system anymore! This is only possible when the inventor has developed a new system he wants to sell! Precision 40 (?) years ago for example. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 22:55:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TCsw123585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:54:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TCsqt23580 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:54:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-51.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.51]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 257F436BA1; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:58:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009201bff95b$d66756a0$33b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 14:52:09 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You are lucky you are not yet as authoritative as I am supposed to be, otherwise... ton >Without looking at the subsequent e-mails, I would say that the AC had >enjoyed a little too much of the Brisbane sunshine! Not to mention the >beer. > > >regards, >Noel &/or Pamela -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 29 23:06:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TD6Wh23609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:06:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TD6Qt23605 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:06:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-66.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.66]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6841236B4E; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:09:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00af01bff95d$74157020$33b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] The 10,000 Commandments (was Correcting Inadvertant Calls) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:03:48 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, July 28, 2000 5:33 AM Subject: [BLML] The 10,000 Commandments (was Correcting Inadvertant Calls) >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ Ton and I are spearheading a movement >to screw down every law tightly and reduce >the need for appeals committees to think. >For that matter we are out to make it less >necessary for Directors to think also. But >we would not admit to any of this, would we, >ton? :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >The Laws of Bridge are succinct, therefore subject to misinterpretation. > >Rewriting the Laws to remove all possible anomalies would result in a >megapage tome - and then misinterpretations would occur due to not being >able to find the relevant Law :-) > >Best wishes It is worse, it is impossible to avoid anomalies, no matter how detailed you describe the laws. Interesting research subject: these: each word contributes to misunderstanding, so the more words the more anomalies. Which seems right, with no words at all, there is no anomaly. O.K nothing else either. Well, not including nature etc. of course. You know what I mean. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 00:25:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TEOb123649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:24:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TEOUt23645 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:24:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.179] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13IXao-000B5Z-00; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:27:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bff969$95131000$b35608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Herman De Wael" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002601bff813$5402cd00$a05608c3@dodona> <3981732C.CEF1129B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:30:04 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > Perhaps one problem though : > > In my system (and no doubt in many others), 1Cl-2Cl is > natural. > (we use 1Cl-2Di to show the majors). > > This is not a cue-bid. > Is it an overcall ? > +=+ Ugh-hugh. Clearly not a cue bid so it must be an overcall. We need to fine tune the use of 'overcall' so that we add 'as distinct from a cue bid and not normally in opponent's bid suit, but it may be where the bid is natural. (I presume you will have at least four cards in the suit when you make it so I do not anticipate you will be challenged!) +=+ > > 1Cl-3Cl shows spades and diamonds. Is that an overcall or a > cue-bid ? > Or something else ? > +=+ We have a category which is 'two suited bids at the two or three level' +=+ > -- ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 05:27:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TJPrv23829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 05:25:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6TJPjt23825 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 05:25:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp07.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.107]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA01249; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:39:13 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <003b01bff993$58ae7440$6b047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: , "Markus Buchhorn" References: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:29:34 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote > Well, it appears that the new machine is up and happy, and that the DNS has > taken the new location to heart, and that Herman got in first :-). > > Please let me know if you see any problems. When I go to http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ I received the answer: LWGate Error: Unable to Open Archive Dir Check to see that your form syntax is correct and try again, or contact the person maintaining the link which brought you here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Is it only my problem or anybody has this result too? Sergey Kapustin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 06:21:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TKLVt23860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 06:21:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6TKKQt23856 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 06:20:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25402 invoked for bounce); 29 Jul 2000 20:23:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.214) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 29 Jul 2000 20:23:45 -0000 Message-ID: <007c01bff99b$18b7a980$d6391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer> <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> <8MiK3+AXCOf5EwC1@probst.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.0.20000725145249.00ae5780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] NEW Thread: Call of cards from dummy and typical mistakes Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:24:54 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Richard Bley" wrote: > there is a point of law where I always felt that the rules here are not > fair enough. So I wanted to discuss with you all, if my feelings are shared > by others and if there is maybe a way to change the law or at least > changing my own interpretation of law. > Advanced apologies for my perhaps awful english: > > LAW 47 C 4 > Named or Designated Card > (a) Play of Named Card > A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the > card he proposed to play. > (b) Correction of Inadvertent Designation > A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does > so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a > card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may > withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law > 47 E). > > The problem goes around the term "inadvertent designation". > The typical problem here is a declarer who has a plan in mind about the > further tricks and by mistake is in the wrong trick. > > Example: > > > Ax > - > xxx > - > > - > J109 > xx > - > > hearts are trumps (and are drawn). The "plan" is clear. Cash the Spade ace > and drop a diamond then ruff a spade and hope the opps will drop a diamond > (this is an artificial case; I hope everybody understands my problem a > about this). Now declarer says "small spade" because he is temporarily > thinking that he alerady cashed the spade Ace. As I read the laws he is not > allowed to take back the small spade (I once allowed it and everybody > shouted at me; after that I was convinced ;-)))). Yes, this is what the law says. Basically, bridge is a mind sport, where a players ability to think and to concentrate are tested. If a player has a poor concentration and thus blunders once in a while, this is part of the game. > Now to my remarks here: > > 1) If my opps would make this sort > of mistake I would allow them to take it > back without further consulting the TD. > May be this is wrong but sometimes > I´m a sort of boy scout. What would you do? I allow him to take it back if I have the impression that this was a mechanical error. If he goofed, I accept the gift. (Some players won't take those cards back) > 2) I think that this interpretation of law isnt > good for the game. What do you think? I think this law is very good for the game. No discussions on what played cards can be taken back - they can't. Especially, played cards can't be taken back just because a player notice partner (UI) or an opponent (AI) showed some sign of surprise. > 3) There is a contradiction to the way in which wrong bids are handled. In > my mind there is no big difference between the wrong card from the bidding > box because I remember my system now and this sort of mistake which is > described here. But in bidding there is now this famous "kojiman" rule > which allows to withdraw bids in exchange to a minus average. At least this > sort of rule should be in this cases available. What do you think? I don't like L25B. A player should not be allowed to change his mind after he made his move. > 4) The actual rules are very rare used. > In fact, I never had a case where > somebody totally inadvertend called > a card from dummy and meant sth different. I once ducked the first trick in 7S, playing to the second trick. My partner once committed *three* such blunders in one session. I think those cases are very freuquent. Especially if we count those situations where dummy has "misheard" and asks for clarification. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 07:17:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TLGaH23898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 07:16:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TLGTt23894 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 07:16:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h104.37.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.37.104]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TLJlh12798; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:19:48 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <398349CC.E1C21F62@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:17:01 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergey Kapustin CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up References: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> <003b01bff993$58ae7440$6b047bc3@marina> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Same for me Vitold Sergey Kapustin wrote: > Markus Buchhorn wrote > > > Well, it appears that the new machine is up and happy, and that the DNS > has > > taken the new location to heart, and that Herman got in first :-). > > > > Please let me know if you see any problems. > > > > When I go to > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ > > I received the answer: > > LWGate Error: Unable to Open Archive Dir > > Check to see that your form syntax is correct and try again, or contact the > person maintaining the link which brought you here. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > Is it only my problem or anybody has this result too? > Sergey Kapustin > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 08:39:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TMdAE23960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:39:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6TMd4t23956 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:39:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.209] (d185fc9d1.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.209]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08554 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <017601bff940$401367e0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> References: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom> <017601bff940$401367e0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:39:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:30 PM +1000 7/29/00, Noel & Pamela wrote: > East can NEVER bid 6C here after the MI unless he is >on the way to 6H or 6S and West must bid that in this sequence after 6C. > >At least, that's what I would rule. Um. I wouldn't. :-) I would rule that there was UI (not MI, if the explanation accurately specified their agreement) to East. However, to say he can _never_ bid 6C is, I think, wrong. Did he have a logical alternative? If so, then was 6C "demonstrably suggested" by the UI? If so, then yes, I adjust (not sure to what, but I don't think that's relevant to my point). If East is relatively inexperienced, I would explain the requirement to "bend over backwards" (last time I tried that, I fell on my ass :) to avoid choosing an LA which might have been suggested by the UI. As for West, I suppose you could argue that 6C, if East really does have a Michaels cue-bid, must be some kind of slam try in spades, but that means he's not allowed, _ever_ to realize the wheels have come off. Why should he be? Certainly if Michaels were not alertable (as is the case in the ACBL) he might consider that possibility, I would think. BTW, I don't see that _West_ has any UI. If he does, whence came it? 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/AwUBOYNd1r2UW3au93vOEQLfBgCgre8ezV8pfGqbjSb7nnZZVivMiFwAn1od GY6zI92U7xwNwymIil19oU20 =NGOJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 09:54:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6TNsK823999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:54:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe32.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6TNsEt23995 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:54:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 99090 invoked by uid 65534); 29 Jul 2000 23:57:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000729235740.99089.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [38.31.149.41] From: "axman22" To: Cc: "Adam Beneschan" References: <200007281552.IAA10491@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:18:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think the appropriate view should be that all changes of call are irregularities, so therefore correcting a call is a privilege. To convey it as a 'right' does not change the irregularity part of it so the standard to be met needs to be very high. One standard is immediacy. Another is 'inadvertancy'. That inadvertancy may be difficult to establish it seems that if it appears inadvertant it should be enough. Otherwise it is to encourage sloppiness and possible angle shooting. Roger Pewick Houston ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 08:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. > > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: "Craig Senior" > > > Inattention may cause you to forget an agreement, or > > > miscount your values or take a wrong line on a hand. We don't give a free > > > pass there. > > > > Whatever the rule may become, I strongly believe it shouldn't depend on > > the reason for the original mistake. (This belief will not surprise > > anybody who knows my dislike for rules that depend on mind reading.) > > There should be a factual test of some sort; either the change is in > > time and allowed or it is too late and not allowed (or no changes are > > allowed at all). That won't prevent all disputes, of course, but at > > least there won't be any confusion about what the rule is and what the > > TD needs to determine. > > I agree, at least in this case; but the principle that we're justified > in penalizing inattention (while OTOH we shouldn't penalize clumsiness > or other purely mechanical errors) should guide us in determining what > factual test to establish. I don't think Craig or anyone else was > suggesting that we try to determine _at_ _the_ _table_ why a > particular player pulled the wrong card or bidding card. > > -- Adam > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 11:17:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U1GNq24040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:16:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6U1GHt24036 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:16:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.97.190]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000730021859.BGYA3760.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid>; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 02:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: <002301bff9c4$475dd060$3554fd3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne_jones" To: "Vitold" Cc: "BLML" References: <3.0.32.20000718115551.01134800@acsys.anu.edu.au> <003b01bff993$58ae7440$6b047bc3@marina> <398349CC.E1C21F62@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 02:19:58 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Vitold. How nice to hear from you:-) Yes it's the same for me too. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vitold" To: "Sergey Kapustin" Cc: ; "Markus Buchhorn" Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up > Hi all:) > Same for me > Vitold > > Sergey Kapustin wrote: > > > Markus Buchhorn wrote > > > > > Well, it appears that the new machine is up and happy, and that the DNS > > has > > > taken the new location to heart, and that Herman got in first :-). > > > > > > Please let me know if you see any problems. > > > > > > > > When I go to > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ > > > > I received the answer: > > > > LWGate Error: Unable to Open Archive Dir > > > > Check to see that your form syntax is correct and try again, or contact the > > person maintaining the link which brought you here. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > -- > > > > Is it only my problem or anybody has this result too? > > Sergey Kapustin > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 11:57:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U1vEg24059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:57:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6U1v9t24055 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:57:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.137]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000730020309.NTLQ2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:03:09 +1200 Message-ID: <015801bff9c9$a1672f20$896860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "ton kooijman" , "Mark Abraham" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <009101bff95b$d4143ee0$33b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:31:29 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "ton kooijman" Mark Abraham > >> > Amusingly the systems regulations for the recent New Zealand nationals > >> > included the stipulation that an opening suit bid at the one level that > >> > did not promise a specific suit of at least four cards was deemed > Highly > >> > Unusual. This was most amusing to those of us playing a genuinely > unusual > >> > system - we could tell our LOL/LOM opponents that their Standard > American > >> > 3+ 1D opening was HUM and illegal (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). > >> > > >> An opening suit bid at the 1 level which does not promise at least one > >specified suit of at least 4 cards. This restriction does not apply to > >opening 1C or 1D bids in strong club systems > > > >> > Mark Abraham > > Is this the brave country where once the famous fertilizers came from? > The same. Like a lot of RA they too persist in making regulations that are contrary to the Laws. As in other parts of the globe WBF explicitly or implicitly appears to turn a blind eye to these regulation makers. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 12:25:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U2Pd724081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:25:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6U2PZt24077 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:25:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.137]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000730023135.NWMF2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:31:35 +1200 Message-ID: <01c301bff9cd$9a051720$896860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> <001f01bff4f5$b6eb44e0$955608c3@dodona> <016e01bff940$37c2ce00$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:26:39 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Noel & Pamela" > Perfect explanation. And if you do it too often with a partner even without > discussing it then it becomes a conventional bid and systemic. If you don't > announce it then you have CPA and leave yourself open to accusations of > "fielding". And if it is such that it is regulated where you are playing > it, then there is no doubt in my mind that the next time it happens and > someone notices, a cheating accusation is on the cards... > > I have said before and I believe that this belief, which appears to be common, is stronger than what is written in the laws. "L75 B. Violations of Partnership Agreements A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress." Note habitual violations "may" not "will" create implicit agreements. This implies that it is possible to make repeated violations of your agreements without forming an agreement. Obviously (to me at any rate) this will be the case if the violation is something that you do not agree about. Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 12:33:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U2XU324094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:33:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6U2XQt24090 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:33:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.137]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000730023926.NXIG2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop>; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:39:26 +1200 Message-ID: <01f101bff9ce$b295bc80$896860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002601bff813$5402cd00$a05608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:34:30 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's > > > suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; > > > (b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior > > > Europeans. > > > +=+ I believe this is a false reading of the Systems Policy. > The Systems Policy refers to 'overcalls' and , in my view > (but I think also in the view of John Wignall since he has > made no comment about an earlier exchange I had on > the point, not on blml), these are distinguished from > 'Cue Bids in Opponent's Suit'. Unless John comes to > the surface quickly and says something else I think we > may act upon the understanding that an 'overcall' is > not in the denomination specified by opponent. > I base my view on the Bridge Player's Dictionary; if > you look at 'Overcall' you will find that it refers to > 'other measures available' and quotes 'Cue Bid in > Opponents Suit' as one of them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Nevertheless there is plenty of room for confusion here as some refer to a cue-bid as an "overcall in the opponent's suit". Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 12:46:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U2jnX24118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:45:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6U2jdt24110 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:45:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id aa153946 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:03:08 +1000 Message-ID: <000401bff9cf$6d814c80$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Thomas Dehn" , , "David J. Grabiner" Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org><014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit><009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:05:55 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "I think the best analogy at a lower level is the ACBL: regulation that every pair must have a convention card. If a pair has no convention card, it may not play any alertable conventions until this is rectified. If the pair which has already been reported as having no convention cards then uses a Jacoby transfer, an adjustment will be made." Much as I hate to say it, and I believe that the ACBL is the "evil empire" in relation to Bridge, but this is a WONDERFUL rule. Congratulations to the ACBL for implementing it and when can it apply in Australia please! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Thomas Dehn" ; Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" Sent: 26 July 2000 6:08 Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. > At 3:28 PM +0100 7/25/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ Now hear this! > > The convention used was not on the CC. > > N/S claimed damage because they had > >no opportunity to prepare a defence. > > A CC had not been received from the > >NBO, per regulation, and a 'third party' had > >filled out a CC for the pair in question. > > > >The Director (Kojak) had cancelled the result and > >awarded 3 imps in favour of the non-offending (N/S) > >side. A previous board had come to notice on > >which the same convention had been used against > >a different pair in the same match. That board was > >at this stage now treated similarly by the Director. > > > >Committee: Jaime Ortiz-Patino in the chair, with > >Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark > >and Grattan Endicott (also as scribe). > > > >Committee Decision: The committee noted that the > >pair were extremely experienced and should have > >been expected to know their responsibilities. They > >should not have been excused for the grave breach > >of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the > >methods on the convention card officially registered. > >They were barred from playing in the final segment > >of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Teams. The > >score of three imps to N/S on each board was > >confirmed. > > > >Comments: Kooijman - I do not agree with this decision > >at all. The question to be answered was whether North- > >South were damaged by the use of this convention (it > >was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it > >properly). Could and would N/S have done better knowing > >the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have > >changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious > >and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have > >caused too much trouble with respect to their convention > >cards and systems. > > > >Rosenberg: I don't like anything about this case. First, I > >believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation > >of the rules. Second, I think the E/W pair involved was > >unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was > >on a vendetta against them. > > > >Wolff: I concur with the ruling. I'm not privy to enough > >information to comment further. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >July 2000, Grattan remarks: It is always difficult in > >these tournaments at the highest level to be slack > >with the rules, because ACs get slated when they > >are. The Conditions of Contest were absolute in the > >requirement for the NBO to register advance copies > >of the CCs. The NBO did not produce one even at > >the start of the tournament and had a record of > >failures to do so in other recent years. > > This discussion, which didn't make it into the write-up, justifies the > severity of the penalty. The original report could have been read as > indicating that the CC was lost in international air mail and that this was > a first offense. > > > When the > >'friend' wrote one out for them the pair concerned > >were responsible for verifying it; a leading > >international pair has no curtain to hide behind > >when it fails in a primary duty. > > Agreed. Again, this explanation suggests more than simple carelessness; in > case of simple carelessness, the only penalty would be an adjusted score if > there was damaged. > > > The bid was illegal. The Conditions of Contest > >were backed by the 1987 Code of Laws in saying > >that a player may not make a bid on the basis of an > >undisclosed special partnership understanding. It > >was considered this pair had a record of inattention > >in this respect to the needs of opponents. The > >committee felt it had good cause to use its powers > >to the full. As to the 3 imps, if I recall accurately this > >was a Law 12A2 adjustment, the illegal bid having > >made it impossible for the board to be played > >normally. > > This is justified if the convention itself is ruled illegal. That is, the > infraction must be seen as playing an unlicensed convention, rather than > playing a licensed convention and failing to disclose it properly. > > And in this context, it seems reasonable. There is a rule in the > Conditions of Contest that all conventions must be on a registered > convention card, and there weas no such card. > > I think the best analogy at a lower level is the ACBL: regulation that > every pair must have a convention card. If a pair has no convention card, > it may not play any alertable conventions until this is rectified. If the > pair which has already been reported as having no convention cards then > uses a Jacoby transfer, an adjustment will be made. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 12:46:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U2jwT24125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:45:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6U2jit24113 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:45:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ea153950 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:03:12 +1000 Message-ID: <000601bff9cf$706b7420$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B649@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:24:15 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, it might be that South psyched the XX (for the life of me I can't think why!) and then ran when 4H was doubled, but I suspect that he had UI from the MI. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'michael amos'" ; Sent: 26 July 2000 10:35 Subject: RE: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > > > > > > >Dlr S, Nil Vul > > > A84 > > > KJ953 > > > 10 > > > Q543 > > >76 K1095 > > >Q10874 A2 > > >7543 KQ986 > > >86 107 > > > QJ32 > > > 6 > > > AJ2 > > > AKJ92 > > > > > >West North East South > > > 1C > > >P 1H Dbl Redbl > > >2D 4H P P > > >Dbl P P 4NT > > >P 5C All Pass > > > > > >Redouble was explained as showing three-card support. > > >5C made 11 tricks. > > > > > >The Director ruled that South was in receipt of UI and that > > >Pass was a logical alternative to 4NT. Score adjusted > > >to -300 in 4HX. > > > > > >Appellants (NS) claim: > > >"The enquiry about the redouble, which came from EAST > > >after North's 4H, seems unrelated to East's hand. The question > > >seems designed to prevent us recovering from a systemic failure, > > >something that would have happened without the question." > > > > > >Decision: > > >The AC determined an assigned adjusted score of NS +150, > > >in accordance with Law 12C3, in order to restore equity. > > > > > > > > >PG: This appeal has attracted considerable discussion in our > > >Daily Bulletins. Please note that in Australia ALL redoubles > > >do not require an alert; hence there was no alert. What do you > > >think of the appeal? > > > > > >Peter Gill > > >Australia. > > With the summary by Grattan about psyches that subject seems finished now (I > even noticed some resistance starting!). Good then Australia brought 12C3 in > the daylight again. > This shows why the ACBL is reluctant to allow using 12C3. Though we do not > have the reasons for the AC to support its decision (except to restore > equity) it seems strange to me. In my opinion a AC should follow the laws > consistently and not come up with all kind of fantastic decisions, they > formally have the power to. The main questions here are whether south was > allowed to bid 4NT or not and whether EW were damaged by an infraction (a > wrong explanation or using UI). If South used UI that means that he was not > allowed to bid 4NT. If he didn't use UI he was allowed to bid 4NT. There is > nothing in between, so either the score for NS should be -300 (assuming the > analysis playing 4H was right) or +400 (answering the question of using UI). > And the score for EW should be the reverse. (conclusion: wrong decision) > If there was wrong explanation EW could be damaged for other reasons, even > if the 4NT was allowed. If south's double was no support west had the right > to know and could have made the decision to pass out the 4H bid, to avoid S > to bid 4NT if being an acceptable call. Here we enter the possibility of > appying 12C3: If the AC considers west's double of 4H quite likely, even > when west realises the possible escape, but considers the chance to pass > quite possible as well, it could decide to adjust a weighted score. > Last remark/question: how did the score of +150 come up? I don't like it, > though, as I said before, formally spoken the AC has he right to adjust like > that. But the AC should say to base the score on (let us say) 50% 5C and 50% > 4HX, compare both with the other table and calculate the average in imp's. > Probably the AC never considered all these things, and just was equity > oriented. Friendly for sure, but wrong, wrong, wrong. > > If extra information comes available please tell me, I would be glad to > adjust my opinion. > > ton > > > > > >============================================================= > > =========== > > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > > the message. > > >A Web archive is at > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > > > My > > previous rant deleted > > I'd have kept the deposit > > > > Mike > > -- > > michael amos > > -- > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 12:46:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6U2jx024126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:45:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6U2jjt24117 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:45:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-54.interpacket.net [216.252.211.54]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id da153949 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:03:09 +1000 Message-ID: <000501bff9cf$6f7135a0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: <200007252251.PAA16837@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:10:00 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Arrh.. It's a 5 loser! I have a Partner who would like to open it 1C (Strong!)..... (Not to even mention the outside 4 card major...) regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: 26 July 2000 8:51 Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > Opening bid of 2s. > > > > When asked it is explained as "weak". > > > > The hand is: > > > > AKQ10xx > > QJxx > > xx > > x > > > > If this hand fits into that pairs agreements of a weak two do you consider > > that their explaination is incomplete? > > No, it's a fine explanation. The hand has only 12 high-card > schmoints, which is short of the 13 needed to open, so obviously it > must be weak, right? > > Heh heh. If the opponents are novices or typical club players, I'd > assume this is their thinking. Against experienced opponents whose > opening bids are so sound that they wouldn't include this hand, I > guess I'd expect them to include a disclaimer that it's "weak" but > might include hands everyone else might open. But I wouldn't make a > big stink about it; it seems unlikely that MI damage will result. > > > > Does your answer alter if they have a card available that says six card suit > > 5-11? > > Probably not, if the opponents are novices. Now, I'd figure they put > 5-11 on their card because someone told them to, but they still think > they need 13 schmoints to open, so they're sort of fixed because they > have a 12-point hand. If they're experienced, I'll just assume that > one of his queens was hidden. > > I'm assuming this isn't a 4th-seat opening. If it is, my answer is > completely different. > > -- Adam > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 20:09:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UA56Q24288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:05:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6UA4vt24283 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:04:59 +1000 (EST) Received: by alpha.netvision.net.il id AA00893; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:08:17 +0300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:15:48 +0300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: [BLML] more brown sticker Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At the Juniors in Turkey, where brown sticker conventions (BSC) were not allowed, their use was allowed over openings of 1Cl which did not promise a 3 card club suit. In other words, BSC were permitted over an opening of 13-14 points and 4-4-3-2 distribution. In Israel (where a majority of our average players open 1Cl on a hand such as the above) we have always prohibited BSC in this situation (while permitting them over 1Cl Precision-like openings.). The Turkey interpretation is evidently in accordance with the WBF Systems Policy supports The relevant regulations are : 2.3 (e) None of the foreging restrictions pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificial opening bids... 2. Definitions: Average hand - a hand containing one card of each rank Strong - high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand Artificial is not defined but natural is defined as a call that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws) so I assume that artificial is its opposite, a call that is a convention. Based on the above, an opening of 1Cl , 13 points, 4-4-3-2 is strong and artificial, and the use of BSC against it should be permitted.(..and if it showed 4-4-3-2 with 11-12 points then BSC are prohibited!) How do BLML members feel about this? Do your countries also allow BSC in this situation? Do you think it should be changed? Eitan Levy -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 20:21:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UAIpD24305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:18:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UAIlt24301 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:18:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from Debug (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14902 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:22:17 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200007301022.UAA14902@acsys.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:22:17 Australia/NSW X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.20 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > When I go to > > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ > > > > > > I received the answer: > > > > > > LWGate Error: Unable to Open Archive Dir My apologies. This is an error Jesper has also pointed out to me - it's a minor typo in the config for lwgate. However, before I fixed it Jesper expressed a desire to obfuscate email addresses to avoid robots trawling this archive for spammable addresses. This struck me as a reasonable suggestion, so I'm just trying to work out the best way to do it. Keep in mind the majordomo archives also contain valid addresses - so I have a few options as to where I make a change, and I'm just going through it identifying the best spot and the best obfuscation. Suggestions (direct to me) welcome. Cheers, Markus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 30 23:57:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UDvBt24385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:57:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lethal.atrax.net.au (LETHAL.ATRAX.NET.AU [203.24.218.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6UDv4t24381 for ; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:57:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-129.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-129.interpacket.net [216.252.211.129]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id va154513 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:14:29 +1000 Message-ID: <00ac01bffa2d$38378c20$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom><017601bff940$401367e0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:59:37 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I can't see that E/W have done anything wrong at all in the given auction, questions asked and the cards held. Agreed UI not MI if the description is correct, but South is gone for all money, UNLESS he has psyched the XX and for the life of me, I can't think why he would do that. regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 30 July 2000 8:39 Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 7:30 PM +1000 7/29/00, Noel & Pamela wrote: > > > East can NEVER bid 6C here after the MI unless he is > >on the way to 6H or 6S and West must bid that in this sequence after 6C. > > > >At least, that's what I would rule. > > Um. I wouldn't. :-) > > I would rule that there was UI (not MI, if the explanation accurately > specified their agreement) to East. However, to say he can _never_ > bid 6C is, I think, wrong. Did he have a logical alternative? If so, > then was 6C "demonstrably suggested" by the UI? If so, then yes, I > adjust (not sure to what, but I don't think that's relevant to my > point). If East is relatively inexperienced, I would explain the > requirement to "bend over backwards" (last time I tried that, I fell > on my ass :) to avoid choosing an LA which might have been suggested > by the UI. As for West, I suppose you could argue that 6C, if East > really does have a Michaels cue-bid, must be some kind of slam try in > spades, but that means he's not allowed, _ever_ to realize the wheels > have come off. Why should he be? Certainly if Michaels were not > alertable (as is the case in the ACBL) he might consider that > possibility, I would think. BTW, I don't see that _West_ has any UI. > If he does, whence came it? > > 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/AwUBOYNd1r2UW3au93vOEQLfBgCgre8ezV8pfGqbjSb7nnZZVivMiFwAn1od > GY6zI92U7xwNwymIil19oU20 > =NGOJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 01:00:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UF01E24419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:00:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UExut24411 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:59:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack (p167-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.167]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA00685 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:03:23 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000731025626.007f63a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:56:26 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: Amusingly the systems regulations for the recent New Zealand nationals included the stipulation that an opening suit bid at the one level that did not promise a specific suit of at least four cards was deemed Highly Unusual. This was most amusing to those of us playing a genuinely unusual system - we could tell our LOL/LOM opponents that their Standard American 3+ 1D opening was HUM and illegal (tongue firmly implanted in cheek). What Mark wrote here is true in as far as it goes. However in a separate part of the New Zealand system regs, in fact the part for the lowest level of tournament play it defines club bids on 2+ suits, diamond bids on 3+ suits and majors on 4+ suits as all being natural. This by implication means that they are authorised for that level. HUMS aren't even mentioned at that level because there are far less nasty things than HUMS which are banned at that level. Similarly Strong club style openings, (including an unnnatural 1D) also receive a specific allowance at that level. Quite clearly anything that has been authorised for play at the lowest level can also be played at the highest level. The misleading (at least to visiting Australians anyway) situation arose because only the HUM regulations were published in the Daily Bulletin rather than the full system regs for all grades of play. Regards Patrick Carter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 01:37:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UFb2i24452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:37:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6UFamt24444 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14099 invoked for bounce); 30 Jul 2000 15:40:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.32) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 30 Jul 2000 15:40:13 -0000 Message-ID: <001a01bffa3c$a6b00b00$20291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009d01bff5ca$443cd6e0$df5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:32:57 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > From: Thomas Dehn > To: > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches > > > > It is not quite accurate that 'how' an > > > understanding is to be disclosed is up to the SO alone. > > > What I mean here is that Law 40E establishes a > > > power for an SO to 'prescribe a convention card *on > > > which partners are to list their conventions and other > > > agreements*'. The law book defines the use of the CC > > > to that extent if one is prescribed. If I understand > > > the language the law says that if there is a CC and > > > you have an agreement, explicit or implicit, the CC > > > should list it. > > > > There exists a problem here: No CC I have ever seen > > provides the necessary space to list more > > than the most basic general agreements of a > > well-established partnership. There is now way > > hundreds of pages of agreements can be squeezed > > into the 2 to 6 pages of a CC. > > > +=+ My personal opinion is that the need > would be served by a brief statement in the > area of the card apportioned to things > opponents 'need to know', or to 'special > agreements'. Too much information which belongs in that tiny little space. > There could be some > amplification if there is room on the card, > but otherwise at least give opponents > opportunity to enquire before you start. I agree with the general approach. However, two pages are not nearly enough to describe a system in necessary detail. > It is up to the SO, I think, to clarify how > much a player is expected to enter in > detail on the CC. > In the 1980's leading opinion in the > WBF was minded to limit the complexity > of players' systems by leaving them > short of space to disclose on the CC. I do not play complex systems. I just happen to have reasonably detailed agreements, which take into account the state of the auction in a natural way. I could, of course, write the names of conventions on the CC and thus save some space. But I doubt that a US player would be happy with the information that we have agreed on a slightly modified "Gromöller" defense against weak NT. The following incident has been brought to my attention: A semifinal of a US regional knockout, Eric Rodwell with an unknown partner. Rodwell's partner opens a 2D multi. Both opponents are unfamiliar with the multi, they thus consult the yellow booklet. Partner RHO Rodwell LHO 2D(a) X 3H(a) ?*huh*? LHO now is truely lost, because this fairly standard sequence apparentlly is not described in the yellow booklet. Basically, he is so unfamiliar with multi openings, that he is unable to understand the explanation. Rodwell then resolves the situation by providing opponents with a defense ... Obviously, this particular pair of opponents would have needed a detailed description of the "terrorist" multi convention, including various competitive situations, and a suggested defense. When I began playing bridge 20 years ago, there were only little restrictions on conventions, and we were able both to try out various approaches and to gain experience by encountering different methods at the table. In the last five years, the only opener I encountered against which I did not have a prepared defense was a 1S fert (opponents' system notes had not been provided to me in advance). Nowadays, with more regulations in place, many players are unable to cope with unfamiliar methods, because the regulations have effectively prevented them from building the experience necessary to form general partnership agreements for unfamiliar situations. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 01:37:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UFauA24451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:36:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e6UFamt24443 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14095 invoked for bounce); 30 Jul 2000 15:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.32) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 30 Jul 2000 15:40:12 -0000 Message-ID: <001901bffa3c$a6547d80$20291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:24:42 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Eitan Levy" asked: > At the Juniors in Turkey, where brown > sticker conventions (BSC) were not > allowed, their use was allowed over > openings of 1Cl which did not promise a 3 card club suit. > In other words, BSC were permitted over > an opening of 13-14 points and 4-4-3-2 distribution. > In Israel (where a majority of our > average players open 1Cl on a hand such > as the above) we have always prohibited BSC in this situation (while > permitting them over 1Cl Precision-like openings.). > > The Turkey interpretation is evidently in accordance with the WBF Systems > Policy supports The relevant regulations are : > 2.3 (e) None of the foreging restrictions > pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificial opening bids... > 2. Definitions: > Average hand - a hand containing one card of each rank > Strong - high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average > hand > Artificial is not defined but natural is defined as a call that is not a > convention (as defined in the Laws) so I assume that artificial is its > opposite, a call that is a convention. > > Based on the above, an opening of 1Cl , 13 points, 4-4-3-2 is strong and > artificial, and the use of BSC against it should be permitted.(..and if it > showed 4-4-3-2 with 11-12 points then BSC are prohibited!) > > How do BLML members feel about this? This 1C opener does neither promise a 4 card major, nor a 3 card minor, and hence it is artificial. I consider a 1C opening on AKxx Axxx Kxx xx to be "more" artificial than a canapé 1H opener on xx,xxx,Ax,AKxxxx. In the latter case, the 3 card opener itself would be brown sticker. All in all, I think BSC methods should be allowed against all 1C openers which do not promise at least a three card club suit. Not just against those which are "a king aboce average strength". Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 03:02:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UH1sO24511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:01:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UH1lt24507 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:01:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax3-30.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.158]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA67406; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:05:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <001b01bffa48$22efe680$9e61040c@mom> From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Noel & Pamela" References: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom><017601bff940$401367e0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> <00ac01bffa2d$38378c20$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:01:46 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In this auction there was no redouble. The 2D bidder would have bid hearts had he known the 2C bid was not Michaels. I believe his partner felt that 4S would not make. My questions are: 1. Is there any obligation by declarer to reveal to the opponents that he has misbid? 2. By NOS asking, it is revealed to declarer that there is a bidding error, and by bidding 6C is he continuing to bid as if his own bid was correct after the strong 2C cue bid and is not using the UI? 3. Does the double have any effect on the action that can be taken by E ( if N had passed couldn't E still have bid 6C?,) and 4. Is this one of those "unlucky" situations for the NOS? (Sorry that I could not get the hands, the boards had been replayed by the time this was told to me.) Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? > I can't see that E/W have done anything wrong at all in the given auction, > questions asked and the cards held. > > Agreed UI not MI if the description is correct, but South is gone for all > money, UNLESS he has psyched the XX and for the life of me, I can't think > why he would do that. > > regards, > Noel &/or Pamela > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: 30 July 2000 8:39 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > At 7:30 PM +1000 7/29/00, Noel & Pamela wrote: > > > > > East can NEVER bid 6C here after the MI unless he is > > >on the way to 6H or 6S and West must bid that in this sequence after 6C. > > > > > >At least, that's what I would rule. > > > > Um. I wouldn't. :-) > > > > I would rule that there was UI (not MI, if the explanation accurately > > specified their agreement) to East. However, to say he can _never_ > > bid 6C is, I think, wrong. Did he have a logical alternative? If so, > > then was 6C "demonstrably suggested" by the UI? If so, then yes, I > > adjust (not sure to what, but I don't think that's relevant to my > > point). If East is relatively inexperienced, I would explain the > > requirement to "bend over backwards" (last time I tried that, I fell > > on my ass :) to avoid choosing an LA which might have been suggested > > by the UI. As for West, I suppose you could argue that 6C, if East > > really does have a Michaels cue-bid, must be some kind of slam try in > > spades, but that means he's not allowed, _ever_ to realize the wheels > > have come off. Why should he be? Certainly if Michaels were not > > alertable (as is the case in the ACBL) he might consider that > > possibility, I would think. BTW, I don't see that _West_ has any UI. > > If he does, whence came it? > > > > 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/AwUBOYNd1r2UW3au93vOEQLfBgCgre8ezV8pfGqbjSb7nnZZVivMiFwAn1od > > GY6zI92U7xwNwymIil19oU20 > > =NGOJ > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 05:29:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UJT4S24584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:29:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UJSvt24580 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA28423 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:32:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:32 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <00b601bff7a1$0c405040$c979073e@D457300> David Burn wrote: > > Perhaps we could strike out 25B and > > alter 25A to read " Except as authorized > > elsewhere in these laws no call in the > > auction may be changed once it is > > completed. > Excellent suggestion. If I might suggest one or two small amendments: > delete from "Except" to "laws" This phrase is necessary to allow corrections of COOTs, Insufficient bids, calls based on MI from opponents, etc. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 05:42:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UJgno24601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:42:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UJggt24597 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:42:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.240] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Iz2C-0006Tn-00; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:46:04 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bffa5f$30af5fa0$f05408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Wayne Burrows" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B64B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002601bff813$5402cd00$a05608c3@dodona> <01f101bff9ce$b295bc80$896860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:46:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; bridge-laws Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > This is bound to happen, because (a) the jump cue bid in an opponent's > > > > suit - e.g. (1H) 3H - to ask for a stop is a Brown Sticker convention; > > > > (b) nobody knows this except people who were in Antalya for the Junior > > > > Europeans. > > > > > +=+ I believe this is a false reading of the Systems Policy. > > The Systems Policy refers to 'overcalls' and , in my view > > (but I think also in the view of John Wignall since he has > > made no comment about an earlier exchange I had on > > the point, not on blml), these are distinguished from > > 'Cue Bids in Opponent's Suit'. Unless John comes to > > the surface quickly and says something else I think we > > may act upon the understanding that an 'overcall' is > > not in the denomination specified by opponent. > > I base my view on the Bridge Player's Dictionary; if > > you look at 'Overcall' you will find that it refers to > > 'other measures available' and quotes 'Cue Bid in > > Opponents Suit' as one of them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Nevertheless there is plenty of room for > confusion here as some refer to a > cue-bid as an "overcall in the opponent's > suit". > > Wayne Burrows > +=+ Plenty of room for confusion, and also plenty of room for common sense IMHO. But yes, and the immediate problem is to clarify before Maastricht. I have been assisting Anna Gudge in dealing with questions from 'Anxious' of Amsterdam, 'Bewildered' of Bulawayo, 'Confused' of Concan, 'Demented' of Delhi through 'Zany' of Zytna. What I have done is to look for answers that make sense to me, at least, draft something for Anna, and copy it to John Wignall who has responsibility for the subject. So let us try again! ## For clarity: 'Overcall' as used in the WBF General Conditions of Contest, June 2000, Section 40.4(f)*, does not include a bid in opponent's known suit unless the bid is made naturally. Such bids made artificially are deemed to be Cue Bids and in some cases Section 40.4 (g) may then apply.## Is this enough, and do we see any further problem in it ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* which is WBF Systems Policy Section 2.3 (b) ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 05:43:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UJh5O24613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:43:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UJgvt24607 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:42:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.240] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Iz2A-0006Tn-00; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:46:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bffa5f$2f68d5e0$f05408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Noel & Pamela" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007501bff4e2$35d98fa0$e9b4f1c3@kooijman> <001f01bff4f5$b6eb44e0$955608c3@dodona> <016e01bff940$37c2ce00$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> <01c301bff9cd$9a051720$896860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: psyches Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:57:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Noel & Pamela ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: psyches > > > "L75 > B. Violations of Partnership Agreements > A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his > partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No > player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated > an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as > through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled > to redress." > > Note habitual violations "may" not "will" create implicit agreements. This > implies that it is possible to make repeated violations of your agreements > without forming an agreement. Obviously (to me at any rate) this will be > the case if the violation is something that you do not agree about. > +=+ Well, Wayne, this may be your opinion but I do not think it would be helpful if we were to mislead people into thinking it is the view upon which Directors will act. Where I do have some sympathy is with respect to 'agreements' in Law 75B; to avoid confusion the better word would have been 'understandings'. However, we must go back to Law 40 to ensure that readers all know that the crux of the matter is 'partnership understanding', and that the basic requirement is disclosure of partnership understandings. You may say to your partner "I understand that you will do this thing but I do not agree with it"; you then have an understanding between partners even if you argue that you do not have an agreement about it, and the understanding must be disclosed. And this applies when you understand it even if you do not discuss the subject. If I were to allow that your reading of 75 were acceptable, my rider would be to say "That's all right, but the requirement to disclose implicit agreements stated in 75B is not restrictive on the broader requirement to disclose understandings.". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 06:03:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UK2qp24632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:02:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UK2kt24628 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13IzLb-0002px-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:06:07 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000730220802.01122c58@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:08:02 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:15 PM 7/30/2000 +0300, you wrote: >At the Juniors in Turkey, where brown sticker conventions (BSC) were not >allowed, their use was allowed over openings of 1Cl which did not promise a >3 card club suit. >In other words, BSC were permitted over an opening of 13-14 points and >4-4-3-2 distribution. >In Israel (where a majority of our average players open 1Cl on a hand such >as the above) we have always prohibited BSC in this situation (while >permitting them over 1Cl Precision-like openings.). > >The Turkey interpretation is evidently in accordance with the WBF Systems >Policy supports The relevant regulations are : >2.3 (e) None of the foreging restrictions >pertain to conventional defences against strong, artificial opening bids... >2. Definitions: >Average hand - a hand containing one card of each rank >Strong - high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average >hand >Artificial is not defined but natural is defined as a call that is not a >convention (as defined in the Laws) so I assume that artificial is its >opposite, a call that is a convention. > >Based on the above, an opening of 1Cl , 13 points, 4-4-3-2 is strong and >artificial, and the use of BSC against it should be permitted.(..and if it >showed 4-4-3-2 with 11-12 points then BSC are prohibited!) > >How do BLML members feel about this? Do your countries also allow BSC in >this situation? Do you think it should be changed? > well, in holland a 1c opening, based on a minimal 2cd is regarded as natural by our NCBO Even a 1C or 1D opening, based on a 3-card is a natural opening. I think this is a rather sound approximation of how a system (5-card major opening) can be applied. regards, anton >Eitan Levy > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 06:32:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UKWQ424651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:32:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UKWIt24647 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 06:32:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13IzoD-0003Ab-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:35:41 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000730223736.01122c58@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:37:36 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. In-Reply-To: <000401bff9cf$6d814c80$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> References: <3.0.6.32.20000716211713.008e0940@mail.wcnet.org> <014001bff59a$33c23ec0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <009f01bff5ca$466e5ce0$df5908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:05 PM 7/29/2000 +1000, you wrote: >"I think the best analogy at a lower level is the ACBL: regulation that >every pair must have a convention card. If a pair has no convention card, >it may not play any alertable conventions until this is rectified. If the >pair which has already been reported as having no convention cards then >uses a Jacoby transfer, an adjustment will be made." > In holland we accept that a jacoby transfer falls in the 'green' region, so players that dont have a cc are still allowed to play stayman and jacoby transfers without the need of having a cc. Perhaps because this system is so widespread here that everyone plays it, or perhaps because we are more tolerant:))))) more artificial methods on the other hand arent allowed in principle :)))))))))) regards anton >Much as I hate to say it, and I believe that the ACBL is the "evil empire" >in relation to Bridge, but this is a WONDERFUL rule. Congratulations to the >ACBL for implementing it and when can it apply in Australia please! > >regards, >Noel &/or Pamela >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David J. Grabiner" >To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Thomas Dehn" >; >Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" >Sent: 26 July 2000 6:08 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Psyches, now hear this. > > >> At 3:28 PM +0100 7/25/00, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >+=+ Now hear this! >> > The convention used was not on the CC. >> > N/S claimed damage because they had >> >no opportunity to prepare a defence. >> > A CC had not been received from the >> >NBO, per regulation, and a 'third party' had >> >filled out a CC for the pair in question. >> > >> >The Director (Kojak) had cancelled the result and >> >awarded 3 imps in favour of the non-offending (N/S) >> >side. A previous board had come to notice on >> >which the same convention had been used against >> >a different pair in the same match. That board was >> >at this stage now treated similarly by the Director. >> > >> >Committee: Jaime Ortiz-Patino in the chair, with >> >Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy Sandsmark >> >and Grattan Endicott (also as scribe). >> > >> >Committee Decision: The committee noted that the >> >pair were extremely experienced and should have >> >been expected to know their responsibilities. They >> >should not have been excused for the grave breach >> >of the conditions of contest. This pair had to play the >> >methods on the convention card officially registered. >> >They were barred from playing in the final segment >> >of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Teams. The >> >score of three imps to N/S on each board was >> >confirmed. >> > >> >Comments: Kooijman - I do not agree with this decision >> >at all. The question to be answered was whether North- >> >South were damaged by the use of this convention (it >> >was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce it >> >properly). Could and would N/S have done better knowing >> >the convention? I do not believe it and I would not have >> >changed the score. A procedural penalty was obvious >> >and a severe one was understandable. The Polish have >> >caused too much trouble with respect to their convention >> >cards and systems. >> > >> >Rosenberg: I don't like anything about this case. First, I >> >believe there was an extremely inflexible interpretation >> >of the rules. Second, I think the E/W pair involved was >> >unfairly treated. It almost feels like the Committee was >> >on a vendetta against them. >> > >> >Wolff: I concur with the ruling. I'm not privy to enough >> >information to comment further. >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >July 2000, Grattan remarks: It is always difficult in >> >these tournaments at the highest level to be slack >> >with the rules, because ACs get slated when they >> >are. The Conditions of Contest were absolute in the >> >requirement for the NBO to register advance copies >> >of the CCs. The NBO did not produce one even at >> >the start of the tournament and had a record of >> >failures to do so in other recent years. >> >> This discussion, which didn't make it into the write-up, justifies the >> severity of the penalty. The original report could have been read as >> indicating that the CC was lost in international air mail and that this >was >> a first offense. >> >> > When the >> >'friend' wrote one out for them the pair concerned >> >were responsible for verifying it; a leading >> >international pair has no curtain to hide behind >> >when it fails in a primary duty. >> >> Agreed. Again, this explanation suggests more than simple carelessness; >in >> case of simple carelessness, the only penalty would be an adjusted score >if >> there was damaged. >> >> > The bid was illegal. The Conditions of Contest >> >were backed by the 1987 Code of Laws in saying >> >that a player may not make a bid on the basis of an >> >undisclosed special partnership understanding. It >> >was considered this pair had a record of inattention >> >in this respect to the needs of opponents. The >> >committee felt it had good cause to use its powers >> >to the full. As to the 3 imps, if I recall accurately this >> >was a Law 12A2 adjustment, the illegal bid having >> >made it impossible for the board to be played >> >normally. >> >> This is justified if the convention itself is ruled illegal. That is, the >> infraction must be seen as playing an unlicensed convention, rather than >> playing a licensed convention and failing to disclose it properly. >> >> And in this context, it seems reasonable. There is a rule in the >> Conditions of Contest that all conventions must be on a registered >> convention card, and there weas no such card. >> >> I think the best analogy at a lower level is the ACBL: regulation that >> every pair must have a convention card. If a pair has no convention card, >> it may not play any alertable conventions until this is rectified. If the >> pair which has already been reported as having no convention cards then >> uses a Jacoby transfer, an adjustment will be made. >> >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 08:24:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6UMNiS24698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:23:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6UMNbt24694 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:23:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.187] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13J1Xn-0009D3-00; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:26:51 +0100 Message-ID: <004301bffa75$a67b9da0$bb5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "nancy" , "Bridge Laws" , "Noel & Pamela" References: <000a01bff661$edd541a0$269f140c@mom><017601bff940$401367e0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> <00ac01bffa2d$38378c20$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> <001b01bffa48$22efe680$9e61040c@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:18:54 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws ; Noel & Pamela Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Unlucky??? > In this auction there was no redouble. The 2D bidder would have bid hearts > had he known the 2C bid was not Michaels. I believe his partner felt that > 4S would not make. My questions are: 1. Is there any obligation by > declarer to reveal to the opponents that he has misbid? 2. By NOS asking, > it is revealed to declarer that there is a bidding error, and by bidding 6C > is he continuing to bid as if his own bid was correct after the strong 2C > cue bid and is not using the UI? 3. Does the double have any effect on the > action that can be taken by E ( if N had passed couldn't E still have bid > 6C?,) and 4. Is this one of those "unlucky" situations for the NOS? (Sorry > that I could not get the hands, the boards had been replayed by the time > this was told to me.) > +=+ Disregarding the UI, and not being reminded therefore of his agreement, is not East's view of the auction that his partner has shown a Spade suit requiring no support, in which he is prepared to play at the four level, and he has been doubled? If so the first question must be whether opposite such a hand East has a hand on which he is justified in removing the contract. The second question is whether, if he is considered justified in moving the contract, his cards justify moving to the level of six opposite the hand he must still consider partner to have. My suspicion is that East will not have the hand to do either of these things, in which case he would be deemed to have used UI and would receive an adjusted score in 4Sx. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 10:59:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6V0w7S24764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:58:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6V0vrt24760 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:57:54 +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 13J3xB-000Ad6-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:01:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:34:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Regrettably my assistant Nanki Poo has not done his job properly and it is believed that this list may not be the most up-to-date list. Please check your entry - especially if it has changed in any way during 2000 - and let Nanki Poo know if there are any mistakes. Let me assure you that Schroedinger's cat does not appear in this article. List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows * Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod Rah-Rey, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson * Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Pictures on Catpage at ( | | ) =( + )= http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 11:39:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6V1d3d24802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:39:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6V1cpt24791 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:38:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13J4ao-000Ds8-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:42:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:13:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Marv References: <002201bff8d0$4ad7b5c0$8b5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002201bff8d0$4ad7b5c0$8b5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott================================= >" I do not love thee! - no, I do not love thee! > And yet when thou art absent I am sad. " > - Caroline Norton. >============================== >+=+ Does anyone know what happened > to Marv? I hope he wasn't caught > counterfeiting. He has told me recently that he expects his difficulties to ease in the Autumn at which time he hopes to start posting on BLML again. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 11:39:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6V1d2g24801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:39:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6V1cnt24789 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:38:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13J4ai-000GZU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:42:05 +0000 Message-ID: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:41:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] President's Cup MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An interesting weekend directing the President's Cup. To my surprise there were two appeals against my rulings - most unusual - and I think that I might finish posting all the weekends' events since they all seemed interesting. The President's Cup is played between Counties notionally in the North-West of England, though the teams invited come from a somewhat wider area. This year it was played in Derby [which is not in the North West anyway!] and National Master [Green] Points were available for the first time. There were seven teams playing: they play teams of eight, thus [for example] two Manchester pairs play N/S against two Mid Wales pairs: then in the next stanza the same boards are played by the Manchester pairs E/W against two Mid Wales pairs. The scoring is "team-of-eight", ie the four scores on a board are added together, and then imped [and later Victory pointed]. There are two sections, sharing boards. Thus Manchester have a N/S pair and an E/W pair at the Red tables, and the same again at the Yellow tables. If I have to remove a board for slow play, assuming both pairs at fault, I cancel the score at the other relevant table *in the same section*. What happened? Well, when Manchester was N/S at the Yellow table, they bid a stupid no-play slam and went off. At the Red table they got a normal +420. After play at the Yellow table [it had already been played at the Red table] North was curious as to the details of the hand, so after play was complete, and the opponents had left the table, she took the curtain card out of the West hand and looked at it. [If you do not know what a curtain card is, in the British Isles we often have a written record of each hand on a card which is put in the individual hands with the cards, and is checked to make sure the hand is correct before play starts. Players are not allowed to handle anyone's curtain card but their own, but this rule is often not obeyed]. Having looked at the West card, she replaced it in the East slot. The board next reached the other Yellow table in the same match, and the Manchester East took the West curtain card out of the slot [despite the word West clearly printed on the back], compared it with his cards, and discovered it was different. He had now effectively seen both his and his partner's hand, and the board was unplayable. The remaining Red table played the board corrected and the routine 420 was again the score. So, Manchester have created the situation, by looking at the curtain card illegally, and not checking it was the right one before looking at it - but what do you do? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 11:39:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6V1cvo24800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:38:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6V1clt24788 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:38:48 +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 13J4am-000BpH-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:42:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:12:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <$mGrMPApovd5EwBa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$mGrMPApovd5EwBa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Declarer puts outs out a green Stop card, and LHO ... > > What I mean is that declarer intended to pull out a Stop card, let us >say before bidding 3C [as happened twice in Lancaster recently], but he >actually pulled out a pass card. > > As soon as he realised, he tried to change it: as his partner had not >called, he was allowed to change it under L25A. > > However, after his pass card, his LHO bid Stop 2NT in one case, and >Stop 3D in the other. This may be withdrawn under L21B, of course. By of course I mean this has been discussed before, it is the accepted interpretation, and if anyone does not like it, fine: please start a thread on the subject. But it is not the question posed here. > But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? Some of the replies to this make some strange suggestions. First, what is the catch? None. I asked a simple question with in my view a simple answer. Second, there seems suspicion about the players actions. Why? Are you really telling me that people do not do silly things like this with Bidding Boxes in your part of the world? Well, if they don't, ok, but everywhere I have played or directed people make silly mistakes with the Bidding boxes. Third, when I say "declarer intended to pull out a Stop card" I mean that "dealer intended to pull out a Stop card", no that there is any doubt. OK, I meant dealer not declarer, but I did not mean anything else. It is usually obvious when someone means Stop card because he immediately goes fishing in the box for his bid. It was not meant to be a question with a catch, or clever answers, or things I have not said or anything. All I want to know is > But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 17:49:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6V7m2B24967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:48:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6V7ltt24963 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:47:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.134] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JAId-000Dii-00; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:47:47 +0100 Message-ID: <002501bffac4$03cc06e0$865608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Nanki Poo" , References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:32:06 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 1:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! > > Regrettably my assistant Nanki Poo has not done his job properly and > it is believed that this list may not be the most up-to-date list. > Please check your entry - especially if it has changed in any way during > 2000 - and let Nanki Poo know if there are any mistakes. Let me assure > you that Schroedinger's cat does not appear in this article. > The cat was never on the list Remove it and it won't be missed, It isn't there again today I wish that cat would go away. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 20:24:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VALvP25035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:21:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from svuns012.its.it (esmtp.its.it [151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VALnt25031 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:21:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.250.197) by svuns012.its.it (5.0.034) id 39804C3500009B97; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:21:14 +0200 Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it (151.92.249.147) by svuns013.its.it (5.0.034) id 3964C61A00058450; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:21:13 +0200 Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:14:34 +0200 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: "Kooijman, A." Subject: R: [BLML] Confusion Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:12:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e6VALrt25032 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk sorry, i don't have understood the correct rule.. someone say 4hearts -1 but Koojman sat that it's correct ( if we know that 5 of clubs is encouraging card to clubs )rule that 5 of clubs is UI and give 4 hearts +1 . What'is the correct rule . Can we consider the 5 of clubs UI ? the strange play of O must be prized ? Bye -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl] Inviato: giovedì 27 luglio 2000 12.58 A: 'J.P.Pals'; NARDULLO Ennio Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Oggetto: RE: [BLML] Confusion > > > > What is your rule ? > > Possibilities proposed by the arbiters : > > 1) 4H -1 ( 2 tricks for the renonce) > > 2) 4H +1 (par of the hand) > > 3) 60%-60% > > 4) 50%-50% > > > > The arbiters ruled : 4H -1 because the 5 of clubs was UI > > I want to know your rule ? > > Declarer did, let us say, not play the hand to his best advantage. > Without the revoke he would have made 9 tricks: he loses a > trick in diamonds > and three in clubs. According to L64a2 the revoke costs NS > two tricks. So I > adjust per L64c to 4H +1. > BTW, which law says that the 5 of clubs is UI? > Cheers, JP I only understand this answer if you want to contribute to the title of this problem: 'confusion' Either we apply 64a or (exclusive) 64c (when 64a doesn't give enough compensation). 64a brings us at 9 tricks, which is - as you analysed - what would have been the result without the revoke. Then 9 tricks seems sufficient. I don't understand why we need to bring in UI seeing the C5 to come to this decision. But there might be a problem. Suppose the C5 is an encouraging signal for clubs and the switch is not obvious. Then I agree that there is no law explicitly saying that the card with which the revoke occurred creates UI (which seems strange, because it would when noticed by declarer and becoming a penalty card). In my opinion (well done ton), but this is new interpretation, we could apply 64c for that. Damage for which the penalty doesn't compensate sufficiently. If you don't like that we solve it by using 72B1: north could have known that a (n illegal) positive signal in clubs could very well damage EW. Which one do you prefer to be written on the appeal form as a reference for the decision? (Mainly for Grattan: reading 50D1 again: 'information arising from facing of a penalty card is UI for partner'. I wonder why it doesn't say: information arising from facing a card that might become a penalty card is UI for partner'? That covers this specific case but also withdrawn penalty cards. Is there any objection to rephrase it like that?) ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 20:29:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VATIZ25056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:29:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VAT9t25052 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:29:10 +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 13JCoe-0002PV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:29:01 +0000 Message-ID: <402KIXAapNh5Ewh2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:46:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ADMINISTRIVIA: New BLML host is up References: <200007301022.UAA14902@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <200007301022.UAA14902@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Markus wrote: >and the best >obfuscation. Obfuscation, Markus? You have been reading too much Endicott! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 21:39:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VBd1x25104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:39:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VBctt25100 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:38:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA02887 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:38:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > What happened? Well, when Manchester was N/S at the Yellow table, > they bid a stupid no-play slam and went off. At the Red table they got > a normal +420. After play at the Yellow table [it had already been > played at the Red table] North was curious as to the details of the > hand, so after play was complete, and the opponents had left the table, > she took the curtain card out of the West hand and looked at it. > Having looked at the West card, she replaced it in the East slot. The > board next reached the other Yellow table in the same match, and the > Manchester East took the West curtain card out of the slot [despite the > word West clearly printed on the back], compared it with his cards, and > discovered it was different. He had now effectively seen both his and > his partner's hand, and the board was unplayable. Looks like you have to award +3 Imps Mid-Wales, -3 Imps Manchester. I would also award PPs a) North, illegal handling of CC when opponents absent - 2 imps b) East, failure to check correct CC - 2 imps (Assuming this is consistent with rest of tournament, otherwise PPws) c) North, incorrect replacement of CC *in a situation where I consider North owes a particular duty of care* - North 10-15 imps/ Suspension/ Disqualification/ Loss of match However, you may have missed a trick here. It seems, from the laws (16B), that you could have "considered that the information would not have interfered with normal play" in that EW will always take precisely 3 tricks and only NS will be bidding - if you later realise your analysis was wrong you can then award an assigned score. 'Tis a shame no substitute was available. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 23:17:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VDGmU25218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:16:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VDGft25214 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:16:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-60.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.60]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17128 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:16:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39842675.B471E23A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:58:29 +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: [BLML] more brown sticker References: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > > > How do BLML members feel about this? Do your countries also allow BSC in > this situation? Do you think it should be changed? > Not exactly pertinent to the question asked, but in Belgium as well, many people play 4-card diamonds, so 1Cl can be 4=4=3=2. For the purposes of the alert procedure, this is considered natural, non alertable (except when it is 100% forcing, which some silly people insist upon) BTW : what do you answer to such a 1Cl with xx Jxxxxx xxx xx ? I passed, and we played 1Cl in a 2-2 fit while there was a 6-4 available. Only three down, as they allowed partner to make one heart too many. Anyway, better minor does not solve that particular problem. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 23:38:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VDc6P25231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:38:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VDbxt25227 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:38:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d330.iae.nl [212.61.5.76]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A855420F0E for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:37:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:35:23 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would award an artificial score of plus 3 IMPs for Mid Wales and minus 3 IMPs respectively for Manchester; Law 86A. And assess Manchester a penalty of 2 VPs (or more depending on the number of boards) in addition: Law 90A Ben P.S. This appeal is interesting; the other not? We had a few years ago something like the above in team play. A grand slam went 1 down and after the post-mortem south returned 12 cards and east 14 to the board. At the other table south and east did not count their cards. During the bidding the incorrect hands have been determined. The pair with the "strong hands" appealed with the argument: "We are not that strong players that we will bid 7; we want an assigned score of 6." ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:41 AM Subject: [BLML] President's Cup > > An interesting weekend directing the President's Cup. To my surprise > there were two appeals against my rulings - most unusual - and I think > that I might finish posting all the weekends' events since they all > seemed interesting. > > The President's Cup is played between Counties notionally in the > North-West of England, though the teams invited come from a somewhat > wider area. This year it was played in Derby [which is not in the North > West anyway!] and National Master [Green] Points were available for the > first time. > > There were seven teams playing: they play teams of eight, thus [for > example] two Manchester pairs play N/S against two Mid Wales pairs: then > in the next stanza the same boards are played by the Manchester pairs > E/W against two Mid Wales pairs. The scoring is "team-of-eight", ie the > four scores on a board are added together, and then imped [and later > Victory pointed]. > > There are two sections, sharing boards. Thus Manchester have a N/S > pair and an E/W pair at the Red tables, and the same again at the Yellow > tables. If I have to remove a board for slow play, assuming both pairs > at fault, I cancel the score at the other relevant table *in the same > section*. > > What happened? Well, when Manchester was N/S at the Yellow table, > they bid a stupid no-play slam and went off. At the Red table they got > a normal +420. After play at the Yellow table [it had already been > played at the Red table] North was curious as to the details of the > hand, so after play was complete, and the opponents had left the table, > she took the curtain card out of the West hand and looked at it. [If > you do not know what a curtain card is, in the British Isles we often > have a written record of each hand on a card which is put in the > individual hands with the cards, and is checked to make sure the hand is > correct before play starts. Players are not allowed to handle anyone's > curtain card but their own, but this rule is often not obeyed]. > > Having looked at the West card, she replaced it in the East slot. The > board next reached the other Yellow table in the same match, and the > Manchester East took the West curtain card out of the slot [despite the > word West clearly printed on the back], compared it with his cards, and > discovered it was different. He had now effectively seen both his and > his partner's hand, and the board was unplayable. The remaining Red > table played the board corrected and the routine 420 was again the > score. > > So, Manchester have created the situation, by looking at the curtain > card illegally, and not checking it was the right one before looking at > it - but what do you do? > > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum > Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 23:39:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VDdCW25249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:39:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VDd2t25242 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:39:03 +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 13JFmQ-000Bfm-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:38:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:19:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <$mGrMPApovd5EwBa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > >> But is LHO's bid AI or UI? To each side? > snips Green stop card; 2NT. Withdrawn under 25A. NB When DWS or I say something *is*, it *is*. If it isn't we ask an opinion. I have always ruled that the green stop card is an infraction and hence the 2NT call is UI to their opponents and AI to the 2NT partnership. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 23:39:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VDdDv25250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:39:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VDd2t25241 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:39:03 +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 13JFmQ-000Bfn-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: <46nrqrA5DYh5EwxV@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:36:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > An interesting weekend directing the President's Cup. To my surprise >there were two appeals against my rulings - most unusual - and I think >that I might finish posting all the weekends' events since they all >seemed interesting. For some reason the EBU does not fine pairs who cause the mis-board nearly enough, but they do fine the pairs who fail to count. NB We in the UK deem the curtain card to be part of the hand. There is little difference between 14-12s and swapped curtain cards except that for some 14-12's we can allow the hand to be played - in any event it is a misboard. What I do, and I think it's sensible as well as being legal is as follows: I fine the pair who misboarded, or the whole table if both NS and EW are involved. (L7C). I do not fine pairs who fail to spot the West card is in the East slot as there is nothing in the Laws which allows me to. I do fine pairs who fail to count even if they can play the hand. I do not give adjusted scores in these situations where a side gets a *much* better result as a consequence of the misboard, unless it self-evidently 'could have been known' that fouling the board is a good idea. They could also have got a much worse result because of the misboard. There was a Chinaman at Cambridge who was renowned for taking the boards to the other table and then after the stanza, the players would discover that the crucial board was fouled. I'd adjust in that case. cheers john > > The President's Cup is played between Counties notionally in the >North-West of England, though the teams invited come from a somewhat >wider area. This year it was played in Derby [which is not in the North >West anyway!] and National Master [Green] Points were available for the >first time. > > There were seven teams playing: they play teams of eight, thus [for >example] two Manchester pairs play N/S against two Mid Wales pairs: then >in the next stanza the same boards are played by the Manchester pairs >E/W against two Mid Wales pairs. The scoring is "team-of-eight", ie the >four scores on a board are added together, and then imped [and later >Victory pointed]. > > There are two sections, sharing boards. Thus Manchester have a N/S >pair and an E/W pair at the Red tables, and the same again at the Yellow >tables. If I have to remove a board for slow play, assuming both pairs >at fault, I cancel the score at the other relevant table *in the same >section*. > > What happened? Well, when Manchester was N/S at the Yellow table, >they bid a stupid no-play slam and went off. At the Red table they got >a normal +420. After play at the Yellow table [it had already been >played at the Red table] North was curious as to the details of the >hand, so after play was complete, and the opponents had left the table, >she took the curtain card out of the West hand and looked at it. [If >you do not know what a curtain card is, in the British Isles we often >have a written record of each hand on a card which is put in the >individual hands with the cards, and is checked to make sure the hand is >correct before play starts. Players are not allowed to handle anyone's >curtain card but their own, but this rule is often not obeyed]. > > Having looked at the West card, she replaced it in the East slot. The >board next reached the other Yellow table in the same match, and the >Manchester East took the West curtain card out of the slot [despite the >word West clearly printed on the back], compared it with his cards, and >discovered it was different. He had now effectively seen both his and >his partner's hand, and the board was unplayable. The remaining Red >table played the board corrected and the routine 420 was again the >score. > > So, Manchester have created the situation, by looking at the curtain >card illegally, and not checking it was the right one before looking at >it - but what do you do? It seems to me the first pair of results are ok. Slam swing. The other is cancelled, (If I understand the movement correctly). and I'd fine Manchester for the misboard but not the failure to notice the East card in the West slot. -- 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 31 23:53:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VDrFH25272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:53:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VDr8t25268 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27283 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA099491583; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:53:03 -0400 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:52:53 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.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 rgb.anu.edu.au id e6VDrBt25269 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, The auction was: N E S W 1S P 1N 2C 2D P P Then N said "oh sh... , I wanted to bid 2H" and called TD. The ruling: Call cannot be changed according to Law 25A cause partner has already called. Law 25B cannot be applied because LHO has already called. So 2D stands and 2H is UI to S. W passed and N played 2D for a bottom. N had 5 Ss and 5 Hs and continue to pretend he was sure he took the 2H bidding card as he always intended (and continue to say that this ruling or the laws are stupid...). Any comment on this application of Law 25 ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/