From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 1 00:13:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VEDhP25294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:13:43 +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 e6VEDat25290 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:13:37 +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 KAA06958 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA09548 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:13:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007311413.KAA09548@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Team of eight scoring X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 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]. Could you clarify this, please? Suppose South plays at all four tables and goes set. The Mid Wales declarers go down one trick each (NV), and the Manchester declarers down two each. Thus the net to Mid Wales is +100 (2 x +50). Is this scored as 3 IMPs or 2 x 2 IMPs = 4 IMPs? Or is there a special IMP table with all the ranges doubled? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 00:27:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VERBa25310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VER5t25306 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:27:05 +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 KAA07664 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA09573 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:26:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200007311426.KAA09573@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Laval_DUBREUIL@uqss.uquebec.ca > 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...). Was the 2D bid card sitting on the table when the TD arrived? If so, it's rather silly for North to pretend he didn't put it there. No doubt he meant to bid 2H, but he didn't, and all he gets is sympathy. If the opponents are nice guys, maybe they will buy North a drink after the session, but not if he's being unpleasant. As you say, the ruling is automatic. North just has to be more careful next time. The TD could explain all the problems that arise when calls are changed and why the rule is as it is. The TD might also explain that the recommended procedure is to _look_ at the bid card before placing it on the table, but North isn't _owed_ anything more than a reading of L25. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 00:45:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VEjYk25327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:45:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e6VEjRt25323 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:45:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e6VEjLA18482 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:22 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA19308 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:20 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:45:20 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01354 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA02310 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200007311445.PAA02310@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Team of eight scoring X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Could you clarify this, please? Suppose South plays at all four > tables and goes set. The Mid Wales declarers go down one trick > each (NV), and the Manchester declarers down two each. Thus the > net to Mid Wales is +100 (2 x +50). Is this scored as 3 IMPs or > 2 x 2 IMPs = 4 IMPs? Or is there a special IMP table with all > the ranges doubled? 3 IMPS. Perhaps there should be a special IMP table, but the multiplier should be sqrt(2) not 2. (Waves hands about deviation varying with the square root of the number of data points.) 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 Tue Aug 1 03:19:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHJ7J25415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:19:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody.wcnet.org [205.133.171.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHJ0t25411 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:19:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [129.1.165.182] (dhcp165-182.bgsu.edu [129.1.165.182]) by woody.wcnet.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e6VHIsv15944 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:18:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: grabiner@mail.wcnet.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <46nrqrA5DYh5EwxV@probst.demon.co.uk> References: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:17:31 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 2:36 PM +0100 7/31/00, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >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. There seems to be a case under Law 90B7. If East and West did not notice swapped curtain cards, making the board unplayable, they committed an error in procedure which required an adjusted score. However, if it is not normal practice to check the position of curtain cards (in contrast to counting; it is normal procedure to check whether you have 14 cards), then I agree that a penalty is not appropriate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 03:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHtCM25462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:55:12 +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-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHsst25441 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13JJm1-000I6E-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:54:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:41:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <46nrqrA5DYh5EwxV@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <46nrqrA5DYh5EwxV@probst.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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >> 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. The first pair of results were both when Manchester was N/S. In effect the results at the Red tables were Manchester +420/-420. At the Yellow tables were Manchester -150/unable to play. -- 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 Tue Aug 1 03:55:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHtCK25463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:55:12 +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-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHsst25443 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13JJm1-000I6F-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:54:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:43:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Team of eight scoring References: <200007311413.KAA09548@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200007311413.KAA09548@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> 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]. > >Could you clarify this, please? Suppose South plays at all four >tables and goes set. The Mid Wales declarers go down one trick >each (NV), and the Manchester declarers down two each. Thus the >net to Mid Wales is +100 (2 x +50). Is this scored as 3 IMPs or >2 x 2 IMPs = 4 IMPs? Or is there a special IMP table with all >the ranges doubled? The score is Teams of Eight, not two Teams of four. In the example you give Mid Wales score: -50 +100 -50 +100 which totals +100 = 3 imps. -- 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 Tue Aug 1 03:55:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHtCf25461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:55:12 +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-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHsst25444 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13JJm1-000I6G-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] President's Cup References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: >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? This ruling was neither of the two appealed. -- 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 Tue Aug 1 03:55:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHtEE25464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHsst25442 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:54:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13JJm1-000I6I-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:48:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker References: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy 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? I think a definition of strong as a king over average is not really correct. I would like to see a change by which strong and artificial is defined in a way that accords with the popular idea of strong and artificial, which basically means that there are weaker 1-level openings available. Say 15+HCP as a minimum. As far as our countries are concerned, most countries tend not to follow the WBF approach. We have fairly complex rules in England as to what may be played. However, we do have a rule that any defence to artificial bids is permitted, so you can play what you like over a 1C opening that may be a doubleton, which we define as artificial for the purposes of this regulation, but you are limited in what you may play in defence to a 1C opening that may be a trebleton, which we define as not artificial for the purposes of this regulation, -- 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 Tue Aug 1 03:55:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHtI725465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:55:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHsvt25448 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:54:59 +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 13JJm1-000I6H-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:54:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:47:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands 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 wrote: >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 ? Completely routine. I would eventually hit North with a Disciplinary Penalty for being a shmuck and a cry-baby. He made the mistake: he should shut up about it. -- 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 Tue Aug 1 03:59:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VHx8525501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:59:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VHx2t25497 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 03:59:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.146.62] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13JJq5-00051U-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:58:57 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bffb18$f938cf60$3e9201d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <$mGrMPApovd5EwBa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:58:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > 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. What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a pass card from his bidding box? 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 Tue Aug 1 04:07:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VI6uw25517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 04:06:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e6VI6ot25513 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 04:06:51 +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 KAA29722 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:58:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:08:00 -0400 Message-ID: <001801bffb1a$43147980$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 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I think a definition of strong as a king over average is not really > correct. I would like to see a change by which strong and > artificial is > defined in a way that accords with the popular idea of strong and > artificial, which basically means that there are weaker > 1-level openings > available. Consider a system like Magic Diamond which is quite popular in Scandinavia. 1C is (essentially) any unbalanced 13-16 HCP hand or 15-17 balanced. The majority of the opening bids are used to show unbalanced 8-12 HCP hands. Should this opening be considered strong? >Say 15+HCP as a minimum. This doesn't seem consistent with the the initial paragraph. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOYXAfyGkJ7YU62vZEQJ3kACgtZjMV4up7TGmCtvMAynuNF6tmp0AoK8l SgrpOcKFJoE/HX1HaQ6nbBh/ =w+pg -----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 Aug 1 05:29:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VJSlq25556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 05:28:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VJSft25552 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 05:28:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.181.175] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13JLEn-0005Ny-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:28:33 +0100 Message-ID: <002101bffb25$7db2e120$afb501d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:28:18 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy 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. Before the match between the Netherlands and Italy, the Dutch discovered that the Italians were playing a 2H overcall of a 1C opening (2+ cards) to show a weak hand with either major. Since they (rather ineptly) didn't know what to do over this, they wanted to change their system so that a 1C opening showed 3+ cards, thus rendering the Italian defence illegal. They were permitted to do so, but only if they did not change it back again for the remainder of the tournament. Comment, using fewer than 10,000 words if possible, on the number of complete absurdities inherent in this situation. 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 Tue Aug 1 06:17:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VKHI625585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:17:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e6VKHCt25581 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:17:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-158.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.158]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C25C36C0D; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:16:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701bffb2b$68ad0c00$9eb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:06:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, July 31, 2000 4:24 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands >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...). Well, if he doesn't admit he acted stupid himself the laws are stupid. Because something stupid happened, that is for sure. ton > >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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 08:49:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e6VMn7X25652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:49:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e6VMn1t25648 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:49:02 +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 <20000731224856.SHYJ24297.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:48:56 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:49:12 -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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001501bffa5f$30af5fa0$f05408c3@dodona> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I really like the definition of a cuebid that is in the Encyclopedia of Bridge (page 85) Cuebid. A forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play. It is applied to (1) bids in the opponents' suit at any level; (2) bids to show controls at a high level after a suit has been agreed directly or by inference. Therefore, 1C - 2C to play cannot be a cuebid, it is a natural overcall just like 1C - 1S is. Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 10:20:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e710JWV25722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:19:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e710JMt25718 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:19:23 +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 13JPm9-000Dz3-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 01:19:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 01:18:35 +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> <46nrqrA5DYh5EwxV@probst.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 >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >> writes > >>> 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. > > The first pair of results were both when Manchester was N/S. > > In effect the results at the Red tables were Manchester +420/-420. > > At the Yellow tables were Manchester -150/unable to play. > ok, so I'd rule result stands for the red tables, and score +3/-3 imps for the misboard at the yellow tables. The player who misboarded was not "trying" to recover from the slam swing and so 'could not have known'. I still don't fine because of West's failure to spot East's curtain card in the West slot. What is the EBU position on this one btw? 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 Aug 1 10:38:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e710c0825750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:38:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e710brt25746 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:37:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (fxmgs@localhost) by aurora.uaf.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08758; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:37:46 -0800 (AKDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:37:46 -0800 (AKDT) From: Michael Schmahl To: David Burn cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: <001501bffb18$f938cf60$3e9201d5@D457300> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, David Burn wrote: > John Probst wrote: > > > 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. > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a > pass card from his bidding box? > > David Burn > London, England > > 18F. Zonal Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls. The infraction was to use the wrong card as a skip-bid warning. -- Michael Schmahl (BS - Math / CompSci, 1998). Resume available on request. [ If God does not exist, it would be necessary to create Him. [ - Albert Camus? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 15:58:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e715vF625888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:57:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e715v4t25881 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.46] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JV2v-000Eck-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:56:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000801bffb7d$4ac261c0$2e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200007311426.KAA09573@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:10:48 +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 31, 2000 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25: inadvertent call stands > > From: Laval_DUBREUIL@uqss.uquebec.ca > > 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...). > +=+ It is good to know that it was not North who was to blame. We might have thought it was all down to him. I do not believe the laws are written for the purpose of giving players an exit when they act carelessly or inattentively. We expect even the eight year old players to be adult when they play the game. ~ 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 Aug 1 15:58:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e715vFx25889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:57:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e715v4t25880 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.46] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JV2x-000Eck-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bffb7d$4bad5e00$2e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <3.0.5.32.20000730131548.007c4d90@netvision.net.il> <002101bffb25$7db2e120$afb501d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:46:36 +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 Comment, using fewer than 10,000 words if possible, on the number of > complete absurdities inherent in this situation. > +=+ Regulations under 80E are widely variable in their approach. I do not see why in some places and at some times waving a green flag should not be a crime. ~ 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 Aug 1 16:14:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e716EN025918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:14:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e716EHt25914 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:14:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.98] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JVJY-000ElJ-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 07:14:09 +0100 Message-ID: <003001bffb7f$b117ab40$2e5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 06:59:03 +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: Monday, July 31, 2000 11:49 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Brown stickers at Maastricht (was: Psyches) > I really like the definition of a cuebid that is in the Encyclopedia of > Bridge (page 85) > > Cuebid. A forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play. It > is applied to (1) bids in the opponents' suit at any level; (2) bids to show > controls at a high level after a suit has been agreed directly or by > inference. > > > Therefore, 1C - 2C to play cannot be a cuebid, it is a natural overcall just > like 1C - 1S is. > > Linda > +=+ Thank you. Very helpful. ~ 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 Aug 1 17:13:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e717DLs25951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:13:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e717DEt25947 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:13:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA03985 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:13:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 01 09:13:22 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSG8AEB7J6001P4P@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:13:08 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 09:10:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 09:13:07 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] more brown sticker To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B652@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: maandag 31 juli 2000 21:28 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker > > > Eitan Levy 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. > > Before the match between the Netherlands and Italy, the Dutch > discovered that the Italians were playing a 2H overcall of a 1C > opening (2+ cards) to show a weak hand with either major. Since they > (rather ineptly) didn't know what to do over this, they wanted to > change their system so that a 1C opening showed 3+ cards, thus > rendering the Italian defence illegal. They were permitted to do so, > but only if they did not change it back again for the remainder of the > tournament. > > Comment, using fewer than 10,000 words if possible, on the number of > complete absurdities inherent in this situation. > > David Burn > London, England > This is too complicated for a tired head as mine, but if my memory is still in phase with the rhythm of changes as we make them in my federation then it is useful to say that we consider a 1C opening on a doubleton, caused by playing 5 cards majors and 4c diamonds, as natural (we also said that it is still alertable). If my juniors arrived in Anatalya with the idea that the rest of the world had discovered this fair approach a long time ago already, then there was some merit in allowing them to change their system. But a decision not to allow them to change their system, advising them to ask their captain and coach to teach them what to do against the 2H overcall would have been at least as resonable a decision. I admit: more than 100 words too many, but written with a pleasant touch I hope. 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 Tue Aug 1 20:09:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71A8OI26083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:08:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta03-app.talk21.com (mta03.talk21.com [62.172.192.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71A8Et26075 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:08:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.120.6.219]) by t21mta03-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000801100855.MVU1553.t21mta03-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:08:55 +0100 Message-ID: <005c01bffba0$631f5480$db0678d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:03:38 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maddog wrote: > ok, so I'd rule result stands for the red tables, and score +3/-3 imps > for the misboard at the yellow tables. The player who misboarded was not > "trying" to recover from the slam swing and so 'could not have known'. I > still don't fine because of West's failure to spot East's curtain card > in the West slot. What is the EBU position on this one btw? ###### Try OB 7.2.1 which says 'It is your responsibility to ensure that you have the correct cards in your hand and you fail to do so at you peril! When you take the cards from the board, before looking at them, first check that the curtain card - if there is one - *belongs to you*, then count your cards, then examine the faces of them and check from the curtain card that they are correct.' This seems to fit the bill exactly! David Martin ###### -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 20:09:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71A8R826084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:08:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta03-app.talk21.com (mta03.talk21.com [62.172.192.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71A8It26076 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:08:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.120.6.219]) by t21mta03-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000801100903.MWV1553.t21mta03-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01bffba0$679aca80$db0678d5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:07:15 +0100 Organization: Davica Ltd 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > John Probst wrote: > > > 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. > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a > pass card from his bidding box? > > David Burn > London, England > ##### If I tell my LHO that I am passing when, in fact, I am making a stop bid then this seems to me to be a clear case of misinformation and L21B1 should apply. David Martin ##### -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 20:42:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71AfEP26127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:41:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71Aevt26119 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:40:58 +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 MAA09580; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:39:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA16875; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:40:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000801124938.00890350@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:49:38 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello again, and sorry for not responding the last 316 mails, but you probably guessed why. I promise it won't happen again ... at least until Xmas. During the Deauville tournament, a strange case happened. The director exonerated us, but it still raises an interesting question : The laws state thet : 1) you have to alert anything unexpected 2) you don't have to alert meanings that follow from bridge logic only So, what if the opponents aren't in a position to apply bridge logic to the case, so that the meaning will be unexpected to them ? Here is the case : west / NS vul W (George) N E (your truly) S xxx K QJxxx Kxxx Axx KQ10xx xx Jxx pass 1S double (1) 2S 3H double (2) 4D (3) pass 4H pass pass pass 4H was the obvious 1 down ; 4S would have made ; 5S would probably not. (1) 11+ HCP, guarantees 4+ hearts. Alerted, but *not asked* (2) general values (3) it follows from (1) that 4D is a fit-showing bid, enabling partner to decide what to do over 4S (he would have defended, of course). So George did not alert. Confronted to a strong, misfit-sounding sequence, North decided his partner had bid 2S on a virtual Yarborough (why not ?) and called it a day. On seeing the dummy, he called for the director, because 4D was not alerted. You see the point : the meaning of 4D is obvious from the meaning of the double, excepted that the latter was not known of the opponents at the critical moment. How would you interpret the LB in this case ? (yes, we sometimes have to do it, like it or not) Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 20:54:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Arkc26140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:53:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Aret26136 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from woek (dc2-isdn2252.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.156.204]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA27475 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:53:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:52:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007A_01BFFBAE.FBBB4A60" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BFFBAE.FBBB4A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Im my federation [Dutch-NBB] a -new- part of the BSC-rules as of = september is as follows: -------- Encryted signalling In addition to the limitations in bidding systems and - conventions = above, players are not allowed to use signalling methods which contain a = message or messages which the leader cannot understand because the key = is only available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is not = allowed). -------- I don't understand the reason(s) for this injunction.=20 Of course, the rule is possible according to L40D, first sentence, but - Only AI will be used - Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of the agreements So there is fulfilment to the basic demands of the bridge-laws. In addition, - the leader don't has the right to ask for the conclusions each of the = offenders has made [L75C]=20 - the statement that UI by huddles that comes of the use this = convention(s) is already ruled [L16, 75] and does hold for many other = conventions as well, so I don't see reason for an exception in this = particular case. So, I don't understand the illegal character of "encrypted signalling". = Me is told the NBB follows the rules of the WBF-BSC- regulations.=20 Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? Kees van der Weijden woek@xs4all.nl ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BFFBAE.FBBB4A60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
Im my federation [Dutch-NBB] a -new- = part of the=20 BSC-rules as of september is as follows:
--------
Encryted signalling
In addition to the limitations in bidding systems = and -=20 conventions above, players are not allowed to use signalling methods = which=20 contain a message or messages which the leader cannot understand because = the key=20 is only available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is not=20 allowed).
--------
I don't understand the reason(s) for this=20 injunction.
Of course, the rule is possible according to L40D, = first=20 sentence, but
- Only AI will be used
- Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of = the=20 agreements
So there is fulfilment to the basic demands of = the=20 bridge-laws.
In addition,
- the leader don't has the right to ask = for=20 the conclusions each of the offenders has made [L75C] =
- the statement that UI by huddles that comes of the use this = convention(s)=20 is already ruled [L16, 75] and does hold for many other conventions as = well, so=20 I don't see reason for an exception in this particular case.
 
So, I don't understand the illegal character of = "encrypted=20 signalling".
Me is told the NBB follows the rules of = the WBF-BSC-=20 regulations.
Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this=20 regulation?

Kees van der Weijden
woek@xs4all.nl
------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BFFBAE.FBBB4A60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 21:01:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71B1Vr26156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:01:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71B1Ot26152 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:01:25 +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 NAA13257; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:00:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA23996; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:59:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000801130846.00859e40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:08:46 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations In-Reply-To: <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:35 26/07/00 +1200, 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? AG : well, i once played in a partnership where this hand fitted into the weak two, except that the hearts should have been a minor. This was alerted, and explained as 'weak, but quite sound', and marked on the CC the same way; This has occasionnaly caused perplexed faces and/or laughter. But I would have felt guilty if i simply explained 'weak'. If the pair who had this hand are experienced enough, they shuold feel the same. But they could always tell you the player took a flyer, and then ... > >Does your answer alter if they have a card available that says six card suit >5-11? AG : Then it means he took a flyer indeed with his 14-count. No penalty, but register it. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 21:06:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71B6LN26168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:06:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71B6Et26164 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:06:15 +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 NAA11237; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:05:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA26400; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:05:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000801131457.0089a250@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:14:57 +0200 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Full and Free Explainations In-Reply-To: <200007271633.MAA16549@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> <000d01bff680$38de4200$626560cb@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:33 27/07/00 -0400, Michael Farebrother wrote: > >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. AG : this seems a bit too categorical to me. In nearly all good textbooks, and in some others, you read that a weak 2S should show a fair 6-card spade suit, about 6-10 ou 6-11 or 5-10 HCP according to the sources, and not too much playability in other suits (usually denies 4 hearts, or 5 in minor). Some add that you shouldn't hold 2 aces. If your 2S bid fits within this scheme, you would be right to alert and say 'weak two-bid', because this is the standard meaning of the word. Anything that devies, like very weak, very sound, 5-card suit, bad suit ... should be stated. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 21:21:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71BKqW26185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:20:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71BKgt26181 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:20:46 +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 NAA12396; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:19:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA02032; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:20:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000801132920.008a2be0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 13:29:20 +0200 To: Eitan Levy , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner 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 13:15 30/07/00 +0300, Eitan Levy 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.). > >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!) AG : no. the points are : 1) a 'strong opening' means 'an opening whose sole purpose is to show strength' like the strong 2 clubs, the Precision Club, the Leghorn Diamond, the Romex Dynamic NT, the 1H opening in some versions of the Little Major, ... 2) the 1C opening, occacionnally done on a 2-card suit, is not a convention, but a treatment. It is, by the way, not subject to alert in some lands (as in Israel, perhaps ?) So the ruling was wrong. The intention is to allow brown conventions like 'Crash' vs strong openings, perhaps also against 'strong or ...' openings like the Carroti Club, surely not against semi-natural openings as this one. >How do BLML members feel about this? Do your countries also allow BSC in >this situation? Do you think it should be changed? AG : in France, where I occasionnally play, this 1C opening would be considered nonstandard alertable, but not artificial enough to allow brown defences. In Belgium, it would be considered standard. If 1C could be bid on 4D + 2C, however (you open weak NT, and begin all strong NT types with 1C), it would be alertable, but even so I don't think I would allow brown defences. The basic test would be : 'is the purpose of the bid to show strength ?' If the answer ie Yes, then allow Crash and the like. If it is no, don't. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 21:41:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Bexm26203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:40:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Beqt26199 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-63.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.63]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15658 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:40:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398585A2.BA2FDE89@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:56:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Obviously David's question was not about the ruling (that's Av+ or - to whoever he judges at fault). The real interesting question is how to score a teams-of-eight when the board has been played at three tables only. Let's see how team of eight is supposed to work to begin with : David Stevenson wrote: > > 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 normally four scores, let's call them A1 and A2 for team A NS, adnd B1 and B2 for team B NS. According to David, the score for the board is then imp(A1+A2-B1-B2). I would assume that imp((A1+A2-B1-B2)/2) would be more appropriate but that's about the same. Now we are missing, say B2. We still have A1 and A2 though. > 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*. > If that is the regulation, then do apply it - but I don't like it. The boards have been played. Let them play again. I would suggest either of the following : with the first formula : in stead of imp(A1+A2-B1-B2) use imp(A1+A2-2*B1) with the second formula : instead of imp((A1+A2-B1-B2)/2) use imp((A1+A2)/2-B1) This also solves the problem that David is hinting at. > 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? > Apart from the ruling - no comment - there is the doubly awkward problem of North's actions. First of all, she has a bad board, and proceeds to foul it. To make matters worse, she does so in a manner which ensures the discovery. She may well be very certain that her teammates always check the curtain card. I believe a very severe PP is in order. And any regulation that lets someone get away with throwing out a bad score by making sure it becomes unplayable at another table, needs rewriting. For which a suggestion above has been provided. But this thing does not only happen in teams-of-eight. In normal teams it can happen as well. We really need a regulation to deal with ArtAss in team play. -- 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 Aug 1 22:35:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71CYEM26272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:34:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71CY7t26268 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua056102 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:35:57 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-154.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.154]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sexy-MailRouter V2.9 13/8407305); 01 Aug 2000 22:35:56 Message-ID: <003501bffc19$05bb34c0$9add36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:31:38 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >.... most countries tend not to follow the WBF approach. Especially Australia, where our System Regulations are still based on [Yellow/Red/Blue/Green Systems] rather than [HUMs and Brown Sticker Conventions]. Can someone please post the best website to find out what the current WBF System Regulations are: is it on the WBF site, or on David Stevenson's site, or somewhere else? Then ignorant Australians like me can update ourselves. Note that my local attempts to obtain a copy of any WBF Guide to CCs and/or Systems have been unsuccessful. Also, is the four-coloured system classification a thing of the past at WBF level? And do the Rules of 15 and 18 still apply? Sorry to bother you with these questions, but I am interested to find out to what extent we in Australia are living in the Dark Ages with regard to System Regulations. 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 Aug 1 22:43:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Ch0v26313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:43:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71Cgct26307 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:42:43 +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 OAA26286; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:43:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA07168; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:42:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000801145118.00890100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:51:18 +0200 To: "Kees van der Weijden" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:52 1/08/00 +0200, Kees van der Weijden wrote: > Hi all, of the BSC-rules as of september is as follows: -------- >Encryted signalling In addition to the limitations in bidding systems and - > conventions above, players are not allowed to use signalling methods which > contain a message or messages which the leader cannot understand because >the key is only available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is >not allowed). -------- for this injunction. Of course, the rule is >possible according to L40D, first sentence, but - Only AI will be used - >Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of the agreements fulfilment >to the basic demands of the bridge-laws. In addition, each of the >offenders has made [L75C] - the statement that UI by huddles that comes of >the use this convention(s) is already ruled [L16, 75] and does hold for >many other conventions as well, so I don't see reason for an exception in >this particular case. So, I don't understand the illegal character of >"encrypted signalling". WBF-BSC- regulations. Can anyone tell me the >(WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. I don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So maybe things will evolve. By the way, you can circumvent this interdiction in the following way : "high-low shows a total even number of cards in the led suit and the suit where signal is done, low-high shows odd". I can't see how this can be disallowed, if Vinje signals "high-low on trumps show 3 even suits, low-high whows three dod suits" are allowed. By the way, Vinje signals occasionnally pass encrypted information too : if I know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, while declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my partner has. So, that ruling IS illogical. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 22:46:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Ckp626323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:46:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71Cgut26309 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:42:57 +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 OAA26342; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:43:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA07350; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:42:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000801145135.00892e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:51:35 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:51:18 +0200 >To: "Kees van der Weijden" , "BLML" >From: alain gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions >In-Reply-To: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> > >At 11:52 1/08/00 +0200, Kees van der Weijden wrote: >> Hi all, of the BSC-rules as of september is as follows: -------- >>Encryted signalling In addition to the limitations in bidding systems and - >> conventions above, players are not allowed to use signalling methods which >> contain a message or messages which the leader cannot understand because >>the key is only available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is >>not allowed). -------- for this injunction. Of course, the rule is >>possible according to L40D, first sentence, but - Only AI will be used - >>Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of the agreements fulfilment >>to the basic demands of the bridge-laws. In addition, each of the >>offenders has made [L75C] - the statement that UI by huddles that comes of >>the use this convention(s) is already ruled [L16, 75] and does hold for >>many other conventions as well, so I don't see reason for an exception in >>this particular case. So, I don't understand the illegal character of >>"encrypted signalling". WBF-BSC- regulations. Can anyone tell me the >>(WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? > >AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. I don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So maybe things will evolve. > >By the way, you can circumvent this interdiction in the following way : >"high-low shows a total even number of cards in the led suit and the suit where signal is done, low-high shows odd". >I can't see how this can be disallowed, if Vinje signals "high-low on trumps show 3 even suits, low-high whows three dod suits" are allowed. By the way, Vinje signals occasionnally pass encrypted information too : if I know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, while declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my partner has. > >So, that ruling IS illogical. > > A. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 1 22:51:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71CotT26343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:50:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Colt26331 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:50:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.165]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12644 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:50:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3986BE39.9F18DE3F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:10:33 +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: [BLML] L25A References: <$mGrMPApovd5EwBa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001501bffb18$f938cf60$3e9201d5@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > John Probst wrote: > > > > > 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. > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a > pass card from his bidding box? > I'm with David here. IMO, the green stop card is a call. It has been made unintentionally, obviously, and can be changed under L25A. The 2NT call has also been made. Where in the Laws does it say what happens to the 2NT call ? -- 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 Aug 1 22:51:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Cp2U26346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Cont26333 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:50:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.165]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12673 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:50:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3986C166.97C7F774@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:24:06 +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] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <3.0.6.32.20000801124938.00890350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > Hello again, > > and sorry for not responding the last 316 mails, but you probably guessed > why. I promise it won't happen again ... at least until Xmas. > > During the Deauville tournament, a strange case happened. The director > exonerated us, but it still raises an interesting question : > > The laws state thet : > 1) you have to alert anything unexpected > 2) you don't have to alert meanings that follow from bridge logic only > > So, what if the opponents aren't in a position to apply bridge logic to the > case, so that the meaning will be unexpected to them ? > > > You see the point : the meaning of 4D is obvious from the meaning of the > double, excepted that the latter was not known of the opponents at the > critical moment. > How would you interpret the LB in this case ? (yes, we sometimes have to do > it, like it or not) > In any "normal" system, 4D would show misfit and running from hearts. OTOH, your 4D shows a very fine fit. I believe that this meaning is alertable, whether or not the meaning of the double has been alerted, explained, or not. I believe there is MI. Not that I'd ever blame George. Is this the George I think it 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 Tue Aug 1 22:51:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Cp4A26347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Copt26338 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:50:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-165.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.165]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12688 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3986C2DF.41B28349@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:30:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hallo Kees, welkom, en voor al de anderen moet ik vragen of je katten of honden hebt. (message to Dany and Quango : I've just asked him if he has cats or dogs). > Kees van der Weijden wrote: > > Hi all, > > Im my federation [Dutch-NBB] a -new- part of the BSC-rules > as of september is as follows: > -------- > Encryted signalling > In addition to the limitations in bidding systems and - > conventions above, players are not allowed to use > signalling methods which contain a message or messages > which the leader cannot understand because the key is only > available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is > not allowed). > -------- > I don't understand the reason(s) for this injunction. > Of course, the rule is possible according to L40D, first > sentence, but > - Only AI will be used yes. > - Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of the > agreements > So there is fulfilment to the basic demands of the > bridge-laws. yes. > In addition, > - the leader don't has the right to ask for > the conclusions each of the offenders has made [L75C] indeed. > - the statement that UI by huddles that comes of the use > this convention(s) is already ruled [L16, 75] and does > hold for many other conventions as well, so I don't see > reason for an exception in this particular case. > no. However, since nothing illegal has happened, and some people still believe this is "unsportsmanlike", a regulation has been made forbidding it. > So, I don't understand the illegal character of "encrypted > signalling". It is of the same nature as the off-side rule, or of prohibiting brown stikers, or some such. > Me is told the NBB follows the rules of the WBF-BSC- > regulations. > Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? > > Kees van der Weijden > woek@xs4all.nl I see you don't understand the type of regulation. Let's explain. I might have the agreement with my partner (thought about doing this for some time already) that we always check declarer's point range. Then we take his bottom value and subtract. We now know which one of us has the least points. We could agree to play upside-down signals by the weaker defender. It is felt that this is too much for a declarer to have to cope with. So it is forbidden. Quite reasonably so, as well. Ton, can I please get a copy of the Dutch text. We'll put it in the Belgian regulations too. -- 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 Aug 1 23:45:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71DitX26387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:44:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Dimt26383 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:44:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA29885 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:44:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 01 15:39:28 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSGLR54O4C001R1G@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:39:15 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:36:55 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:39:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B656@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 Be careful Kees, Dutch people are not supposed to answer these impertinent questions. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: dinsdag 1 augustus 2000 14:30 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > > > Hallo Kees, welkom, en voor al de anderen moet ik vragen of > je katten of honden hebt. > > (message to Dany and Quango : I've just asked him if he has > cats or dogs). > > > Kees van der Weijden wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Im my federation [Dutch-NBB] a -new- part of the BSC-rules > > as of september is as follows: > > -------- > > Encryted signalling > > In addition to the limitations in bidding systems and - > > conventions above, players are not allowed to use > > signalling methods which contain a message or messages > > which the leader cannot understand because the key is only > > available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is > > not allowed). > > -------- > > I don't understand the reason(s) for this injunction. > > Of course, the rule is possible according to L40D, first > > sentence, but > > - Only AI will be used > > yes. > > > - Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of the > > agreements > > So there is fulfilment to the basic demands of the > > bridge-laws. > > yes. > > > In addition, > > - the leader don't has the right to ask for > > the conclusions each of the offenders has made [L75C] > > indeed. > > > - the statement that UI by huddles that comes of the use > > this convention(s) is already ruled [L16, 75] and does > > hold for many other conventions as well, so I don't see > > reason for an exception in this particular case. > > > > no. > > However, since nothing illegal has happened, and some people > still believe this is "unsportsmanlike", a regulation has > been made forbidding it. > > > So, I don't understand the illegal character of "encrypted > > signalling". > > It is of the same nature as the off-side rule, or of > prohibiting brown stikers, or some such. > > > Me is told the NBB follows the rules of the WBF-BSC- > > regulations. > > Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? > > > > Kees van der Weijden > > woek@xs4all.nl > > I see you don't understand the type of regulation. Let's > explain. > I might have the agreement with my partner (thought about > doing this for some time already) that we always check > declarer's point range. Then we take his bottom value and > subtract. We now know which one of us has the least > points. We could agree to play upside-down signals by the > weaker defender. > > It is felt that this is too much for a declarer to have to > cope with. > > So it is forbidden. > > Quite reasonably so, as well. > > Ton, can I please get a copy of the Dutch text. We'll put > it in the Belgian regulations too. > > -- > 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 Aug 2 00:07:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E6lP26413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:47 +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 e71E6ct26400 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:41 +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 13Jcgj-0005zD-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:57:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker References: <001801bffb1a$43147980$23c3e080@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <001801bffb1a$43147980$23c3e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >> I think a definition of strong as a king over average is not really >> correct. I would like to see a change by which strong and >> artificial is >> defined in a way that accords with the popular idea of strong and >> artificial, which basically means that there are weaker >> 1-level openings >> available. > >Consider a system like Magic Diamond which is quite popular in >Scandinavia. >1C is (essentially) any unbalanced 13-16 HCP hand or 15-17 balanced. >The majority of the opening bids are used to show unbalanced 8-12 HCP >hands. >Should this opening be considered strong? > >>Say 15+HCP as a minimum. > >This doesn't seem consistent with the the initial paragraph. Why not? -- 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 Wed Aug 2 00:23:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7SA26470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6jt26410 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:46 +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 13Jcgn-0005zA-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:39 +0100 Message-ID: <$SArhCACrrh5EwCq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:55:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Convention cards {was: appeals/psyches} References: <200007221852.OAA14756@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004201bff42a$faa53cc0$5f5608c3@dodona> <013f01bff59a$332b2ee0$c32a1dc2@rabbit> <001b01bff60b$1ce66e80$725608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001b01bff60b$1ce66e80$725608c3@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: >+=+ 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. You mean the diskette they left at home? -- 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 Wed Aug 2 00:32:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71EWmf26510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71EWft26506 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:32:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA24851 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:32:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 01 15:37:16 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSGLOE5TMI001R1G@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:37:02 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:34:42 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:37:00 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B655@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 > > David Burn wrote: > > > > John Probst wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a > > pass card from his bidding box? If a law is broken, most probably law 30. To restrict the problem to the case where somebody takes out a pass card where he wants to produce the stop card the word 'infraction' might not be adequate, but an irregularity it is. If LHO has made a call before we apply 25A law 21B tells us what to do. I hope we all agree that LHO has based his call on misinformation then. And law 16 tells us what to do with the extraneous information. ton > > > > I'm with David here. > > IMO, the green stop card is a call. > It has been made unintentionally, obviously, and can be > changed under L25A. > The 2NT call has also been made. > Where in the Laws does it say what happens to the 2NT call ? > > In law 21B as I explained above. ton > -- > 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 Aug 2 00:38:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7fH26477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6st26438 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jcgy-0005zC-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:49 +0100 Message-ID: <51vaYBA8tsh5Ewxi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:07:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Integrated Version 4.02 U 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. It certainly would not make me happy, if I am the David S referred to. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 00:52:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71EpeG26549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:51:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71EpXt26544 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:51:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from woek (dc2-isdn2131.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.156.83]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA16345; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:51:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <015301bffbc7$eb852b20$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: "BLML" , "Herman De Wael" References: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> <3986C2DF.41B28349@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:50:57 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Im my federation [Dutch-NBB] a -new- part of the BSC-rules > > as of september is as follows: > > -------- > > Encryted signalling > > In addition to the limitations in bidding systems and - > > conventions above, players are not allowed to use > > signalling methods which contain a message or messages > > which the leader cannot understand because the key is only > > available to the offenders (mains encrypted signalling is > > not allowed). > > -------- > > I don't understand the reason(s) for this injunction. > > Of course, the rule is possible according to L40D, first > > sentence, but > > - Only AI will be used > > yes. > > > - Of course the offenders give full-disclosure of the > > agreements > > So there is fulfilment to the basic demands of the > > bridge-laws. > > yes. > > > In addition, > > - the leader don't has the right to ask for > > the conclusions each of the offenders has made [L75C] > > indeed. > > > - the statement that UI by huddles that comes of the use > > this convention(s) is already ruled [L16, 75] and does > > hold for many other conventions as well, so I don't see > > reason for an exception in this particular case. > > > > no. > > However, since nothing illegal has happened, and some people > still believe this is "unsportsmanlike", a regulation has > been made forbidding it. > > > So, I don't understand the illegal character of "encrypted > > signalling". > > It is of the same nature as the off-side rule, or of > prohibiting brown stikers, or some such. > > > Me is told the NBB follows the rules of the WBF-BSC- > > regulations. > > Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? > > > > Kees van der Weijden > > woek@xs4all.nl > > I see you don't understand the type of regulation. Let's > explain. > I might have the agreement with my partner (thought about > doing this for some time already) that we always check > declarer's point range. Then we take his bottom value and > subtract. We now know which one of us has the least > points. We could agree to play upside-down signals by the > weaker defender. > It is felt that this is too much for a declarer to have to > cope with. KvdW: Probably, but the offenders are ALWAYS in a position in which they can be mislead by the leader. In reverse, misleading leaderplay therefore shouldn't allowed then either. So, recognizing two sides of this case (1.the misleading message to the other side and 2. the informationexchange exlusive to own side), which part is forbidden? > So it is forbidden. > > Quite reasonably so, as well. KvdW: If it is the informationexchange-part which is forbidden then L16, in which AI is defined, should be revisited, because as general rule in more situations informationexchange exclusive to own side, based on the own cards, is possible. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 00:53:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7j426483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E70t26453 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jch1-0005zB-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:15:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. References: <200007281511.LAA06555@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200007281552.IAA10491@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200007281552.IAA10491@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 Adam Beneschan wrote: >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. We always do: why should we not suggest it? I want to know when a player wishes to change his 3S to 3H why he wants to change it: how can I know whether it is an inadvertent designation otherwise? -- 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 Wed Aug 2 01:05:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71F5kE26571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:05:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.retemail.es (SGI5917ef1.iddeo.es [62.81.31.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71F5ct26567 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:05:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from ret009d3 ([62.82.236.114]) by smtp2.retemail.es (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000801150538.ICSR1372.smtp2@ret009d3>; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:05:38 +0200 Message-ID: <000d01bffbca$246c34e0$72ec523e@ret009d3> From: "Eduardo Mendoza" To: "Kees van der Weijden" , "BLML" References: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:06:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01BFFBD2.8545A0A0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BFFBD2.8545A0A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kees van der Weijden=20 To: BLML=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions So, I don't understand the illegal character of "encrypted = signalling".=20 Me is told the NBB follows the rules of the WBF-BSC- regulations.=20 Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this regulation? Hi all the group and especially to David Stevenson. Maybe the reason is that's "unfair" an information systemic not = available both lines.But the answer to Blackwood 0-3 Aces or 1-4 Aces is = not available too ( the exact number of aces). Best Regards.Lucas = Mendoza ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BFFBD2.8545A0A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kees van der = Weijden=20
To: BLML
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 = 10:52=20 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted = signalling -=20 Brown Sticker Conventions

 
 
So, I don't understand the illegal character of = "encrypted=20 signalling".
Me is told the NBB follows the rules of=20 the WBF-BSC- regulations.
Can anyone tell me the (WBF)-reaso(s) for this=20 regulation?
 
Hi all the group and = especially to David=20 Stevenson.
Maybe the reason is that's = "unfair" an=20 information systemic not available both lines.But the answer to = Blackwood 0-3=20 Aces or 1-4 Aces is not available too ( the exact number of aces). = Best=20 Regards.Lucas Mendoza
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BFFBD2.8545A0A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 01:08:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7lT26484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:47 +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 e71E6xt26452 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jch1-0005zA-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:26:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: R: [BLML] Confusion 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 NARDULLO Ennio wrote: >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 ? Ennio: this is the correct method. First, we apply L64A. This transfers two tricks. That makes 4H-1. Second, we apply L64C to see whether the non-offenders would do better than the L64A rule without the revoke. Without the revoke but with the strange play in diamonds [which was not cause by the revoke] the score would be 4H-1. No improvemnet, so we are still at 4H-1. The C5 is not UI because nothing in the Laws makes it UI. Ton comments that he feels it should be, and I agree - but it is not. So still 4H-1. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 01:12:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71FCQ026592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:12:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71FCKt26588 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:12:20 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:22:10 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 16:22:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. I >don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd >encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So >maybe things will evolve. Italian signalling does not give declarers a headache, but TDs. How do you encourage if you only have even cards? Answer: hesitate, then play a high card ;-) Why an encrypted signal gives the ones using it an unfair advantage? Let me give an example. Suppose you have the following agreement: you signal high-low for even. However, as soon as both defenders know how many cards partner has in some suit, you start signalling in reverse if you have an odd number of cards in the known suit. Example: suppose declarer (right of you) plays 4S, after opening a weak two. You lead the king of diamonds (requesting distribution). Left of you appear two spades. You have two of them, and declarer six (because of his weak two). Your partner therefore must have three spades. Your partner makes the same deduction, hence there is a known suit. Your partner will now signal low-high for even. This is a signal which declarer cannot understand, unless he knows how many spades you have. That can be called an unfair advantage, for the defenders know more than declarer. The signal described above uses an encryption key based on some distributional property. There are more possibilities, such as that the weaker of the two defenders according to some formula reverses signalling (see post Herman de Wael), but they have in common that the signal can only be decoded if you know the particular distribution used for encrypting. Note that the Italian signalling does not have this property. Declarer possesses the same information as the defenders. The trouble with this signalling method is that it is sometimes impossible to give the proper signal, and defenders sometimes resort to illegal means to suggest it (see above). -- 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 Aug 2 01:23:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7Sw26471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6kt26412 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:47 +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 13Jcgn-0005zB-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:38 +0100 Message-ID: <0y5p5IAkirh5Ewgg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:46:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B643@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B643@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >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. In the first twenty-five years of this millennium there was no such thing as the card game bridge. Why is no-one using the term? Because media hype only lasts so long, and then you have to move on to something else, like saying that one crash changes the safest plane in the world to the least safe, and other inanities. Actually, the main news in England at the moment is that the Manchester pair of Capal and Capal [well, only one of them actually] have just won an appeal, breaking a run of twenty-five straight lost appeals. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 01:33:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7YE26476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6ot26427 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:51 +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 13Jcgv-0005zA-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:44:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B649@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000b01bff75e$09f4fc20$575408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000b01bff75e$09f4fc20$575408c3@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: >From: Kooijman, A. >> 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. +=+ I do not agree with this argument. I find in many cases that a TD or an AC, armed with L12C3 but not commonsense, will often make a better decision than a similar TD/AC without L12C3. I think it is too easy to blame L12C3. In this case, I think L12C3 is a red herring. The question is "Why did the AC adjust?" and the original narrative does not say. Well, if it was to restore equity in spite of the Laws of bridge, perhaps they did say, but goodness knows how they would have restored equity without L12C3. Shot South and East, I expect. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 01:38:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7UD26472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6nt26421 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jcgu-0005zB-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:28:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Wayne Burrows wrote: >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? No, not nearly game forcing. >Or is there another regulation dealing with psychs of a precision club? No, they are legal. It is illegal to psyche a game-forcing or nearly game-forcing artificial opening. It is also illegal to psych a Multi 2D opening at Level 3. Other psyches are not covered by these regulations. Note that this regulation is part of the agreement by which people are allowed to play these artificial bids. If someone psyches an Acol 2C opening then they are playing an unpermitted system and it is treated as such. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 01:53:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Fqo826623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:52:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71Fqht26619 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 01:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t5o993p62.telia.com [213.64.28.62]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA14647; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:52:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005801bffbe1$37d543c0$3e1c40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: SV: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:33:19 -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 e71Fqlt26620 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >In any "normal" system, 4D would show misfit and running >from hearts. >OTOH, your 4D shows a very fine fit. > >I believe that this meaning is alertable, whether or not the >meaning of the double has been alerted, explained, or not. > >I believe there is MI. > Consequently, you have to alert every single call after a conventional call? It's not a good approach. You alert to help your opponents, but too many alerts makes life harder for them. Why have anyone to alerting take-out doubles in any position and then have to asume that the alerted X have to be for take out? Please, change either alert rules or interpretation of situation. I should changed the alert rules. Almost every one have been using TO for years so they should not be alertable. My suggestion is that every player first chance to enter the bidding with a double lower than game level should be asumed to be a TO. Bridge should be must easier if we demand at least some interest of opponents bidding from the players. If some one chose to guess in stead of asking should be his problem, if I will get a opportunity to rewrite the law. All those extra regulations have been the "third part of the game" and it is a totally disaster for the future of bridge. We have to make bridge easier. The "normal player" are not interesting in reading lawbooks and theirs appendix and spending some years to find out which things are "normal", "natural" or "common" here and there. /Peter >Not that I'd ever blame George. Is this the George I think >it 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 01:53:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7w426488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6ot26425 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:59 +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 13Jcgn-0005zC-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:42:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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$5f5608c3@dodona> <397AD6AA.B863E552@village.uunet.be> <002101bff4f5$b8e14880$955608c3@dodona> <002801bff4ff$f6ba3720$826860cb@laptop> <016f01bff940$390957c0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <016f01bff940$390957c0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Noel & Pamela wrote: >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 you are psyching a specific type of call every two months or so then you have reached the level at which there is likely to be a partnership understanding. If partner remembers it and bids accordingly then that is fielding the psyche. If this is happening then Wayne's bidding is illegal. But I do not see any reason to suppose it. Partners who are determined you should not psyche will do the opposite to what you suggest: push to the limit "to teach partner a lesson" if he has psyched. Moreover, many actively ethical players will push in such situations to make sure that they is no question of fielding. >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. Not at all: they are trying to be ethical. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 01:58:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7ha26482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6st26441 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jcgz-0005zD-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:13:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Correcting inadvertant calls. References: <002801bff89c$a73c5980$c910f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002801bff89c$a73c5980$c910f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >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.) I think this argument is interesting, insofar as it almost convinces me to the opposite view it espouses. Either you allow people to correct things because they are paying insufficient attention, or you don't. I believe that we should because I think the time has passed when we could do otherwise. David B thinks that we should hit them with the rule [as we both agree it should have been all along], ie no call/play is changeable once made. But if you make a mechanical error, then you *are* paying *insufficient* attention to the game. So you cannot use that as an argument for not allowing changes until partner calls - that is nonsense. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 02:04:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7jw26480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6vt26446 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:59 +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 13Jcgw-0005zf-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:54 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:59:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 References: <200007281538.e6SFcQp23698@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> 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 Linda Trent wrote: >> >> 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. Have I lost my way, or is it everyone else [with a couple of exceptions, Kojak seems to be one]? We were given an incomplete story. Peter Gill has made clear that it is incomplete. I have read some stuff about how the AC should know that L12C3 does not apply. How does anyone on BLML know this? What is written on the form as to the reason for an appeal is not by any means the only thing mentioned in the appeal - but it is the only thing published. Unlike Linda's case-books, the ABF method of reporting appeals does not allow much detail to be published. In this case the AC did not give reasons for or detail of their decision. We have no idea whether the decision is wrong or right. Even the assertion about the method of applying L12C3 to become a single figure is not laid down in stone. Yes, I think it better to calculate it as Grattan has said, but at least one Australian authority has written an article recommending otherwise. Why are you blaming a Committee for following what an Australian authority has written? I have promised Laurie [note: must get a round tuit] an article to try to convince the Australian authorities how to apply it. I think that people should have a fresh look at this one. Remember that you do not have much information. If we had the information that appears in one of Linda's case-books we could give a much better determination. OK, let me put it another way. I decide I am ruling NS +150. Please tell me why I am wrong. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 02:08:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71E7fA26478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:07:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71E6lt26415 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jcgq-0005zC-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:06:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:22:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] NEW Thread: Call of cards from dummy and typical mistakes References: <001201bff598$3bb7d240$2a11f7a5@oemcomputer> <00a001bff5ca$473f6880$df5908c3@dodona> <8MiK3+AXCOf5EwC1@probst.demon.co.uk> <001a01bff60b$1c049a00$725608c3@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20000725145249.00ae5780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000725145249.00ae5780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e71E6ut26444 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 ;-)))). >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? Not let him take it back. Bridge is a game of mistakes. I am not going to allow my oppos to retract every mistake they make: why should I? If I see a player with nine tricks on top take eight of them, I am not going to allow him another chance because he has realised he has made a mistake. But the lawmakers and custom+practice have concluded that there is a type of mistake that should be corrected. Basically, I am with David Burn on this one: the game would be a better game if this namby pamby approach had never appeared: people would be quite happy if mistakes could never be changed. However, the current situation is that you may change inadvertent designations where the mechanics of your choice of call or play and what your fingers or tongue do [!!!] differ. We allow mechanical errors to be changed in certain situations. We allow a call to be changed if it is a mechanical error in speaking, writing or taking a card out of the bidding box. We allow a play to be changed if it is an error in speaking. Online Laws have not got their act together, but I think the general consensus is that you should allow a call or play to be changed where it is a mis-mouse. OK, so we allow such changes: but why should we allow other changes? I do not see why we should. In the situation you describe someone is thinking about a different trick, but he was intending to play a small spade at the moment he called for a small spade so why one earth should he be allowed to change their mind and correct it? >2) I think that this interpretation of law isnt good for the game. What do >you think? I think to change it to include other stupidities apart from mechanical errors would be terrible for the game. No, it would be bad to allow changes for other reasons: keep it the way it is. >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? L25B is a dreadful Law and should be taken out to sea and sunk by gunfire. It is bad for the game. >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? It is true that changes for inadvertent designations are far commoner in some situations than others. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 02:49:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71GmfW26687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 02:48:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71GmYt26683 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 02:48:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ff.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.239]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA05568 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007601bffbd8$90a67900$ef11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 12:50:13 -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 From: Peter Swensson >Why have anyone to alerting take-out doubles in any position and then have to asume that the alerted X have to be for take out? >Please, change either alert rules or interpretation of situation. I should changed the alert rules. Almost every one have been using TO for years so they should not be alertable. Many now are not in the ACBL for much the reason you put forth. That is one advantage of trying to make alerts be for the unexpected. But you do sacrifice simplicity. Just alerting everything non natural is an easier concept...even if it does mean alerting TOX's and Stayman. Once you start to except "obvious" conventional actions from being alerted you face adjudging where you must draw the line. With too many or unclear or constantly changing exceptions you can increase memory burden significantly and interpose a barrier for the social kitchen table player to enter tournament bridge. It isn't easy being an NBO :-)). 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 Wed Aug 2 03:38:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71HcHw26727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:38:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71HcAt26723 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ff.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.239]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA04856 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008001bffbdf$7f1f4de0$ef11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Plain Speaking and 25B (Was Re: [BLML] NEW Thread: Call of cards from dummy and typical mistakes) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:39:50 -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 (DWS wrote) > L25B is a dreadful Law and should be taken out to sea and sunk by >gunfire. It is bad for the game. This is exactly the kind of clear unequivocal writing we need in the laws themselves. You know where David stands on this issue! To have suggested it should be drawn and quartered would allow some BL's to draught three more such odiferforous creations. To suggest that it be buried without ceremony would allow some to try and hide it in a subparagraph somewhere. Indeed, do away with it, despatch it forthwith, and do not allow it to return. It gives the knowledgeable few a needless advantage over the masses in attempting recovery from their own momentary stupidities and absurdities. If they can't hold back the 7D, let them PAY for the round. :-) Still, I feel I have to nominate this example of clear, concise speaking for a Kojak! Craig Senior -- "D--n the torpedoes...full speed ahead." Farragut "Nuts." Nimitz "This is the most ridiculous nonsense up with which I have ever had to put." His Majesty's PM...think he had some sort of blood tie to colonials though. "We shall never surrender." Same fellow. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 03:59:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71HxAa26746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:59:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Hx4t26742 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:59:05 +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 NAA23552 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA20538 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:58:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008011758.NAA20538@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > In any "normal" system, 4D would show misfit and running > from hearts. Pardon me, but I beg to differ. In a normal system, 4D would show length or at least high card strength in diamonds. Why should it show a misfit in hearts? > OTOH, your 4D shows a very fine fit. No, the takeout double showed that. The diamond bid didn't add anything to what was already shown about hearts. I'm not familiar with the alert rules in Belgium, but I wouldn't have thought it likely they would make this 4D bid alertable. Furthermore, I have zero sympathy for NS. Why didn't South ask about the alerted takeout double? It could have been anything: penalty, strong NT, takeout with specific distribution (as it was), two-suiter, maybe even a heart overcall. By bidding 2S without asking, South is passing very serious UI to his partner. It is quite likely, IMHO, that even if North had bid 4S, it would have been ruled illegal. South has said, in effect, "I have a sound 2S bid, which I want to make no matter what the double means." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 04:10:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71IABv26763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:10:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71IA4t26759 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:10:05 +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 OAA24114 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA20689 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:10:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008011810.OAA20689@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > AG : in France, where I occasionnally play, this 1C opening would be > considered nonstandard alertable, but not artificial enough to allow brown > defences. In Belgium, it would be considered standard. Nobody seems to have mentioned the ACBL rule, so I will. If 1C (or 1D, for that matter) shows three or more cards, there are restrictions on what defenses can be used, depending on the convention chart in effect. If the suit opened can have two or fewer cards, there are no restrictions except that "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' methods" (whatever that means) are prohibited. [Sorry, Alain, for the extra copy. I hit the wrong button.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 04:22:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71ILx826779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:22:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f105.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.105]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71ILst26775 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:21:46 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.23 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.23] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 11:21:46 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2000 18:21:46.0951 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A3A3570:01BFFBE5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Martin Sinot >alain gottcheiner wrote: > >AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. >I > >don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd > >encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So > >maybe things will evolve. > >Italian signalling does not give declarers a headache, but TDs. How do >you encourage if you only have even cards? Answer: hesitate, then play >a high card ;-) > >Why an encrypted signal gives the ones using it an unfair advantage? >Let me give an example. Suppose you have the following agreement: >you signal high-low for even. However, as soon as both defenders know >how many cards partner has in some suit, you start signalling in >reverse if you have an odd number of cards in the known suit. >Example: suppose declarer (right of you) plays 4S, after opening >a weak two. You lead the king of diamonds (requesting distribution). >Left of you appear two spades. You have two of them, and declarer >six (because of his weak two). Your partner therefore must have three >spades. Your partner makes the same deduction, hence there is a >known suit. Your partner will now signal low-high for even. This >is a signal which declarer cannot understand, unless he knows >how many spades you have. That can be called an unfair advantage, >for the defenders know more than declarer. This is not true. You know that a particular opponent has the same parity of spades as the side-suit he signals high-low in. So if you figure out either suit, you have both and the key. It really isn't that difficult a problem. And with this method, opponents may not be able to find out until declarer does. Now open a weak-two with a 7-card spade suit and see if either defender tries to show two or four odd-suits. :) You can keep the correct key from the opponents in a situation like this and sometimes keep it from them as long as they can keep it from you so there's simultaneous discovery. Defenders have easier, different, and arguably better information than the declarer, but hardly more. >The signal described above uses an encryption key based on some >distributional property. There are more possibilities, such as >that the weaker of the two defenders according to some formula >reverses signalling (see post Herman de Wael), but they have >in common that the signal can only be decoded if you know the >particular distribution used for encrypting. Declarer opens 1NT 15-17, holds a bad 18. Board has 8 pts. Each opponent has 7. Each opponent thinks he's the weaker one. oops! :) Declarer can play his cards to reveal the distribution as well as take tricks. You'll be able to make inferences like, player with the odd diamonds has the most points. It's not the most intuitively useful piece of information, but it's hardly nothing. This is the sort of thing that turned two of the better players at my college off from the ACBL. There's little to no opportunity for innovation. Discovering the game and experimenting is what made it interesting for them. They were great for party bridge. At the same time, allowing these sorts of things would turn many timid lol's away from the game. A pity you can't have both worlds. For high-level competitions, this should be considered fair. People will encounter it quickly, give it thought, and learn how to cope as much as possible. It's by far not a hopeless situation for declarer unless declarer is incapable or unwilling to think. -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 Wed Aug 2 04:29:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71ISvU26793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:28:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e71ISrt26789 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:28:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra507485 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 04:20:16 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-164.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.164]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Interesting-MailRouter V2.9 3/771971); 02 Aug 2000 04:20:15 Message-ID: <005401bffc49$391123e0$a4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:15:58 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > We were given an incomplete story. Peter Gill has made clear that it >is incomplete. I have read some stuff about how the AC should know >that L12C3 does not apply. How does anyone on BLML know this? > > What is written on the form as to the reason for an appeal is not by >any means the only thing mentioned in the appeal - but it is the only >thing published. Unlike Linda's case-books, the ABF method of reporting >appeals does not allow much detail to be published. In this case the AC >did not give reasons for or detail of their decision. We have no idea >whether the decision is wrong or right. > > Even the assertion about the method of applying L12C3 to become a >single figure is not laid down in stone. Yes, I think it better to >calculate it as Grattan has said, but at least one Australian authority >has written an article recommending otherwise. Why are you blaming a >Committee for following what an Australian authority has written? > > I think that people should have a fresh look at this one. Remember >that you do not have much information. If we had the information that >appears in one of Linda's case-books we could give a much better >determination. > > OK, let me put it another way. I decide I am ruling NS +150. Please >tell me why I am wrong. Everything David writes is correct. And makes me wonder. I was merely a player at the event in question and could report only what I had read in the Daily Bulletin. Because the appeal attracted many comments locally, I submitted it to BLML mainly to check whether local comments about the "illegality" of the AC ruling were correct. The AC ruled under L12C3 which states that an AC "may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity". Are they entitled to do so? Here's my guess as to what happened. The AC may well have had different information available. South had forgotten that XX was three card support. All four players are "mates" of mine, so I may even have more info now than the AC had. Post-appeal, South told me that he remembered about support redoubles as soon as his partner bid 4H. On BLML most of us "know" that this is irrelevant. But should South be expected to know this? In Australia, a faraway country where learning such things is not so easy? Then East - who does have a habit of asking more questions than most [West told me post-appeal that he (West) has to ignore more UI than most players have to] - butted in with the result that South had UI. South was not sure if he was ethically entitled to run but he decided to give it a try. Nobody except those on the AC currently knows the thought processes of the AC. One top player who is often on AC's wrote to the next Daily Bulletin to say that AC's can't split scores in this case, and that the Director's ruling was automatic and correct. As I see it, the AC ruled that South had UI. L16A2 says to assign an adjusted score. L12C3 now comes into play. The Laws don't seem to say how the "vary"ing of the assigned adjusted score is to be done. What I still don't know is - does the new CoP specify this? Or is it unwritten common knowledge? Will someone tell me or do I have to wade through the CoP myself? 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 Wed Aug 2 05:36:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71JZZV26834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:35:35 +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 e71JZSt26830 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:35:29 +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 PAA29914 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA21780 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:35:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008011935.PAA21780@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: "Peter Gill" > L12C3 now comes into play. The Laws don't seem to > say how the "vary"ing of the assigned adjusted score is to be done. As far as I can tell, L12C3 allows an AC to do anything it wants as long as some notion of "equity" is satisfied. This may be why Zone 2 has shown little enthusiasm for L12C3. I expect most people think "equity" does not include any illegal action (except one that makes the OS _worse_ off), but I don't see that thought spelled out anywhere. A possibly similar case is number one in the ACBL Chicago Appeals book. The AC rules an OS bid illegal because of UI, then gives the NOS a score based on the illegal bid. See Ron Gerard's comments. (See also, if you can stand them, the comments from others who don't realize the ruling was illegal.) > What I still don't know is - does the new CoP specify this? Or is it > unwritten common knowledge? Will someone tell me or do I have > to wade through the CoP myself? I don't recall anything about this in the CoP, but perhaps I overlooked it. If it's not there, it would be a good thing to add. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 06:06:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71K6de26856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:06:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71K6Vt26852 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-30.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.30]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id DC9DB36C18; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:05:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00ce01bffbf2$f94e9f40$ceb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:33:54 +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 > OK, let me put it another way. I decide I am ruling NS +150. Please >tell me why I am wrong. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Well, I would be prudent, saying that you are probably wrong (wrong, wrong) as I did in my first reaction. And I use my long term experience to draw that conclusion. Furthermore I would invite you to come up with your explanation for awarding +150 as I did in my first reaction, hoping to be able to reconsider my opinion, but not being very optimistic about that possibility. By the way, you can't just have holidays and then jump in cutting open wounds which just started to heal. 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 Aug 2 06:22:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71KMf326874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:22:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e71KMYt26870 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:22:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 12070 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2000 20:22:21 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 1 Aug 2000 20:22:21 -0000 Message-ID: <398731B5.95CC9A6F@eduhi.at> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:23:17 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch schrieb: > This is the sort of thing that turned two of the better players at my > college off from the ACBL. There's little to no opportunity for innovation. > Discovering the game and experimenting is what made it interesting for > them. They were great for party bridge. > At the same time, allowing these sorts of things would turn many timid > lol's away from the game. A pity you can't have both worlds. I just can't see lol's drawing deep conclusions from defenders' signals. I fear some Eminent And Influential Administrator had a bad board against opponents using such methods. We do not forbid them in Austria, they are very rare and have not yet been a problem. Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 07:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Kxwk26894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:59:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71Kxrt26890 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:59:53 +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 e71KxqK15936 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:59:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 06:59:50 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Fairness In-Reply-To: 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, 1 Aug 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: > alain gottcheiner wrote: > > >AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. I > >don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd > >encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So > >maybe things will evolve. > > Italian signalling does not give declarers a headache, but TDs. How do > you encourage if you only have even cards? Answer: hesitate, then play > a high card ;-) > > Why an encrypted signal gives the ones using it an unfair advantage? Surely fairness is something that should be objectively measured. If the game is being played according to the stated rules, then surely there is inherent fairness in this situation. If a contestant chooses to impose some condition of "sportsmanship" on themselves above that required by the rules then that is their privelege, but it *would* be unsporting to criticise a contestant or their strategy for being "unfair" while they are abiding by the rules. Thus people seek to embed their feeling that encrypted signals are inappropriate in regulation, which is reasonable. What isn't reasonable is to assert that encrypted signals are inherently "unfair" in the absence of a regulation. > Let me give an example. Suppose you have the following agreement: > you signal high-low for even. However, as soon as both defenders know > how many cards partner has in some suit, you start signalling in > reverse if you have an odd number of cards in the known suit. > Example: suppose declarer (right of you) plays 4S, after opening > a weak two. You lead the king of diamonds (requesting distribution). > Left of you appear two spades. You have two of them, and declarer > six (because of his weak two). Your partner therefore must have three > spades. Your partner makes the same deduction, hence there is a > known suit. Your partner will now signal low-high for even. This > is a signal which declarer cannot understand, unless he knows > how many spades you have. That can be called an unfair advantage, > for the defenders know more than declarer. I can produce scads of relay sequences on request where the responder has shown some number of controls and then followed a predefined scheme for showing the identity of the high cards held where there are a finite number of possible holdings consistent with responder's bidding. Relayer has an advantage over the defenders though, because he is more likely to hold some of the cards that responder might have been showing. This allows relayer to resolve (typically) considerably more of responder's ambiguity than the opponents. There's nothing "unfair" about this - the partnership agreements are fully and freely available to the opponents. They are just unable to use them anywhere near as well as the relayer (and of course they are no use at all to the responder!). This case is identical to the cases of encrypted signals and the ambiguous 5C and 5D responses to RKCB - one side is able to deduce from their holding something that the other side cannot deduce, or cannot do so as effectively. It is unreasonable to describe only one as "unfair"! 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 Wed Aug 2 07:25:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71LP2v26917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:25:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e71LOwt26913 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:24:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e71LOvK16073 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:24:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 07:24:56 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <398731B5.95CC9A6F@eduhi.at> 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, 1 Aug 2000, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Todd Zimnoch schrieb: > > > > This is the sort of thing that turned two of the better players at my > > college off from the ACBL. There's little to no opportunity for innovation. > > Discovering the game and experimenting is what made it interesting for > > them. They were great for party bridge. > > At the same time, allowing these sorts of things would turn many timid > > lol's away from the game. A pity you can't have both worlds. > > I just can't see lol's drawing deep conclusions from defenders' signals. Well LOLs ain't always LOLs. I played a country congress back o' Bourke a few months back and the LOLs were most aggrieved that the discarding agreement my partner and I had was "we play cards we can afford". LOL: "What are your carding agreements?" CHO: "Rarely some natural count, otherwise we play cards we can afford" LHO: "So what are your discards?" CHO: "Cards we can afford" LOL: "But surely they must mean something" CHO: "It means he didn't want that card" LOL: "But which other suit does he want" CHO: "That card doesn't tell me" (enter the encrypted signalling debate... pard is deducing from his hand and that fact I can afford this card what the correct defence will be) 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 Wed Aug 2 08:30:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71MU0126976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:30:00 +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 e71MTit26955 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JkXW-000C8J-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:29:34 +0100 Message-ID: <00d401bffc07$f51f40e0$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003501bffc19$05bb34c0$9add36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:20:55 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker > David Stevenson wrote: > Can someone please post the best website to find out what the > current WBF System Regulations are: is it on the WBF site, or > on David Stevenson's site, or somewhere else? > > Then ignorant Australians like me can update ourselves. Note that > my local attempts to obtain a copy of any WBF Guide to CCs > and/or Systems have been unsuccessful. > +=+ I do not know whether DWS has got the details up yet. I think he intended to do it. But the official posting site for the WBF Championships is http://bridge.ecats.co.uk where you should look under 'Documents'. ~ 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 Aug 2 08:30:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71MTxC26975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:30:00 +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 e71MTit26954 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JkXc-000C8J-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:29:40 +0100 Message-ID: <00d701bffc07$f8da7420$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Peter Gill" Subject: [BLML] Brown stickers seen Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:26:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:29:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JkXh-000C8J-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:29:45 +0100 Message-ID: <00d901bffc07$fbbcfaa0$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:28:35 +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: Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 7:21 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions ------------------ \x/ -------------------- > For high-level competitions, this should be considered fair. People > will encounter it quickly, give it thought, and learn how to cope as much as > possible. It's by far not a hopeless situation for declarer unless declarer > is incapable or unwilling to think. > +=+I make no comment on what should be considered fair or desirable. What I have gathered to be an argument for the prohibition is that part of the essential nature of the game is for declarer to have equal access with defenders to the content of messages they exchange. ~ 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 Aug 2 08:30:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71MTs526968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:29:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71MTgt26953 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:29:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JkXZ-000C8J-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:29:38 +0100 Message-ID: <00d601bffc07$f750c6e0$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B649@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><000b01bff75e$09f4fc20$575408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:32:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: Kooijman, A. > > >> 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. +=+ > > I do not agree with this argument. I find in many cases that a TD or > an AC, armed with L12C3 but not commonsense, will often make a better > decision than a similar TD/AC without L12C3. I think it is too easy to > blame L12C3. > +=+ I am not sure what argument David is not agreeing. The belief I have tried to express here is that Edgar's reluctance was misplaced. The right road is to give TDs and ACs powers and help them gain skills in using them. In my words there was no thought of blaming 12C3 for anything; it is only a tool in the hands of the craftsman, and if the tool slips it is not the fault of the tool. ~ 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 Aug 2 08:30:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71MU8226979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:30:08 +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 e71MTst26969 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:29:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JkXY-000C8J-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:29:36 +0100 Message-ID: <00d501bffc07$f64d60a0$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003501bffc19$05bb34c0$9add36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 21:55:45 +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: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] more brown sticker > David Stevenson wrote: > >.... most countries tend not to follow the WBF approach. > > Especially Australia, where our System Regulations are still > based on [Yellow/Red/Blue/Green Systems] rather than > [HUMs and Brown Sticker Conventions]. > > Can someone please post the best website to find out what the > current WBF System Regulations are: is it on the WBF site, or > on David Stevenson's site, or somewhere else? > > Then ignorant Australians like me can update ourselves. Note that > my local attempts to obtain a copy of any WBF Guide to CCs > and/or Systems have been unsuccessful. > > Also, is the four-coloured system classification a thing of the past > at WBF level? > > And do the Rules of 15 and 18 still apply? > +=+ Green, Blue, Red, Yellow are classifications of Systems. Brown Sticker is a classification of certain conventions. The reason Brown Sticker is a hot subject just now is that Brown Sticker jobs are not allowed in the Round Robin of the Olympiad. There is no mention of Rule of 15, 18 or anything like that. The 'stop' is that an opening bid at the one level that as a matter of partnership agreement may be a king or more below average strength is HUM. [ I am not sure that we know what 'most' countries do, but DWS is right that there are wide variations. The WBF has just started on a long haul of persuasion to bring practices more closely together. Some people may think it could be done by introducing greater rigidity and less freedom to regulate into the laws; I do not share such a view, believing that it would be more likely to fragment the structure of the administration of the game.] ~ 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 Aug 2 08:45:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71Mj0T27044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:45:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71Mist27039 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.99.58.27] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13JkmE-00046X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:44:47 +0100 Message-ID: <004501bffc0a$11dc8380$1b3a63c3@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005401bffc49$391123e0$a4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:44:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > We were given an incomplete story. Peter Gill has made clear that it > >is incomplete. I have read some stuff about how the AC should know > >that L12C3 does not apply. How does anyone on BLML know this? Well, you and I "know", or think we know, that the varying of a score to do equity is not appropriate when the issue is solely one of whether an action that may have been taken as a result of UI is allowed to stand. We "know" that one of only two outcomes should be considered by the TD and/or the AC: (1) The action is deemed not chosen over another by reason of the UI, in which case the action is permitted and what followed from it at the table remains the result; or (2) The action is deemed chosen over another by reason of the UI, in which case it is cancelled. In this case, it is now possible for the TD and/or the AC to assign a result based on the probabilities of various outcomes that might have happened had the illegal action not occurred. You and I "know" that an AC must make its mind up about the potentially illegal action one way or another. This is not a question of different procedures applying in different jurisdictions; it is a question of what the Laws say. A player in possession of UI may not select from among LA's one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI (to paraphrase L16). Well, if a player may not do something, then when he does it, it must be undone in its entirety by the TD or AC in order for them to be in a position to assign a score. It is not open to an AC to say, in effect: "We think that South might have used UI when he bid 4NT, or he might not. Therefore, we will allow 4NT to stand some of the time and disallow it the rest of the time". I can only assume, from the assignment of +150 to North-South, that the AC did indeed follow this kind of erroneous reasoning, allowing 5C to make some of the time for 400 to North-South, and 4H doubled to go down some of the time for -100 or -300 to North-South. In this case, the question to be addressed was: did South choose 4NT over some other action because of UI indicating that 4NT was more likely to be successful than any logical alternative? The answer to this would appear to me to be "yes". In that case, 4NT is cancelled and the logical alternative "pass" is substituted. Since the bidding would end if this happened, the AC must now consider the likely result(s) of North's playing in four hearts doubled, and assign as the actual score on the board a number of IMPs based on their assessment of the probabilities of each result. > > What is written on the form as to the reason for an appeal is not by > >any means the only thing mentioned in the appeal - but it is the only > >thing published. Unlike Linda's case-books, the ABF method of reporting > >appeals does not allow much detail to be published. In this case the > AC > >did not give reasons for or detail of their decision. We have no idea > >whether the decision is wrong or right. This does not seem to me to follow. If the AC had adjusted the score to, for example, NS +2000, we would know that this was wrong without having to hear any more about why they did it - the assumption would be that they were insane, or had taken a substantial bribe, but the adjustment itself would constitute sufficient proof that their method of arriving at it was wrong. Since, following the cancellation of the 4NT bid, there is no doubt at all that North-South would have received a minus score in four hearts doubled, an assigned score of NS +150 is of itself sufficient proof that the AC's decision was wrong. > > OK, let me put it another way. I decide I am ruling NS +150. Please > >tell me why I am wrong. You tell me why you are ruling this, and I will tell you why you are wrong. At the moment, all I can tell you is that you are wrong. A score of NS +150 cannot possibly be arrived at by anyone correctly interpreting the Laws of bridge. > The AC ruled under L12C3 which states that an AC "may vary an > assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity". Are they entitled > to do so? In the general case, yes. If, for example, they had ruled that the 4NT bid was cancelled, they could assign a score on the basis that 4H would go for 300 70% of the time and for 100 30% of the time - that would be a correct use of L12C3. What they may not do is use L12C3 to permit an action based on UI to be taken some percentage of the time. But you (Peter) should be aware that the only reason DWS and I claim to "know" all this is that we have discussed the situation thoroughly on many occasions, and have a body of high-level experience to guide us. It is possible - indeed, on the evidence of this case it is highly probable - that this kind of thing has not been thought about much in Australia. If that is so, it is not right to castigate the members of the AC who arrived at what they doubtless thought was an equitable outcome based on a desire to achieve justice. 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 Aug 2 09:19:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e71NJLJ27077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:19:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e71NJEt27073 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:19:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.120] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13JlJW-000DJ0-00; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:19:10 +0100 Message-ID: <010701bffc0e$e3241e40$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <00ce01bffbf2$f94e9f40$ceb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 00:13:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 > > > OK, let me put it another way. I decide I am ruling NS +150. Please > >tell me why I am wrong. > > > >-- > >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > Well, I would be prudent, saying that you are probably wrong (wrong, wrong) > as I did in my first reaction. > And I use my long term experience to draw that conclusion. > Furthermore I would invite you to come up with your explanation for awarding > +150 as I did in my first reaction, hoping to be able to reconsider my > opinion, but not being very optimistic about that possibility. > +=+ The reason that +150 is an ill-advised adjudication is that if you decide South must pass rather than bid 4NT, the contract becomes set in 4Hx. There is then no involvement of 12C3; the only question is 'how many tricks?'. One should not argue that the AC did not have the power to make a 12C3 adjustment, but if they choose to do so one may expect them to explain the thinking by which they have arrived at an arbitrary adjustment of this kind. Of course, experience in Europe has led us to the view that weighted scores are not well worked in total points but better by conversion of their elements to imps/matchpoints before composing these into a single score adjustment. In Europe I think we could properly describe the adjustment as 'wrong' but in zones where the experience with 12C3 to date is minimal we should judge less harshly. ~ 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 Aug 2 12:12:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e722BMw27246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:11:22 +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-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 e722BAt27238 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:11:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jnzq-000L3s-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:11:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:25:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <3.0.6.32.20000801124938.00890350@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000801124938.00890350@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hello again, > >and sorry for not responding the last 316 mails, but you probably guessed >why. I promise it won't happen again ... at least until Xmas. > >During the Deauville tournament, a strange case happened. The director >exonerated us, but it still raises an interesting question : > >The laws state thet : >1) you have to alert anything unexpected >2) you don't have to alert meanings that follow from bridge logic only > >So, what if the opponents aren't in a position to apply bridge logic to the >case, so that the meaning will be unexpected to them ? > >Here is the case : west / NS vul > > W (George) N E (your truly) S > > xxx K > QJxxx Kxxx > Axx KQ10xx > xx Jxx > > pass 1S double (1) 2S > 3H double (2) 4D (3) pass > 4H pass pass pass > >4H was the obvious 1 down ; 4S would have made ; 5S would probably not. > >(1) 11+ HCP, guarantees 4+ hearts. Alerted, but *not asked* >(2) general values >(3) it follows from (1) that 4D is a fit-showing bid, enabling partner to >decide what to do over 4S (he would have defended, of course). So George >did not alert. > >Confronted to a strong, misfit-sounding sequence, North decided his partner >had bid 2S on a virtual Yarborough (why not ?) and called it a day. >On seeing the dummy, he called for the director, because 4D was not alerted. > >You see the point : the meaning of 4D is obvious from the meaning of the >double, excepted that the latter was not known of the opponents at the >critical moment. >How would you interpret the LB in this case ? (yes, we sometimes have to do >it, like it or not) I do not think this is a matter for the Law book at all. When to alert is a matter of regulation, and whether you should alert in this situation depends on those regulations. Certainly I would rule against you in England, because I think you have breached English alerting regs. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 12:12:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e722BJt27245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:11:19 +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-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 e722BAt27237 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:11:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jnzt-000L3y-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 03:11:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:19:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <007d01bffb9e$3bc47ac0$659c6dc2@xs4all.nl> <3.0.6.32.20000801145118.00890100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000801145118.00890100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. I >don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd >encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So >maybe things will evolve. > >By the way, you can circumvent this interdiction in the following way : >"high-low shows a total even number of cards in the led suit and the suit >where signal is done, low-high shows odd". >I can't see how this can be disallowed, if Vinje signals "high-low on >trumps show 3 even suits, low-high whows three dod suits" are allowed. By >the way, Vinje signals occasionnally pass encrypted information too : if I >know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and >thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, while >declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my partner has. I do not believe that the fact that someone can find a way around a regulation makes the regulation illogical. Furthermore, if someone does find such a way, first I rule against him, let him take it to the NA, and second he gets noticed by myself and my colleagues. Bridge has not really come to this in most places, thank goodness. -- 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 Wed Aug 2 17:40:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e727dYm27407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:39:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e727dPt27403 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:39:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.22] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Jt7Z-000HJ1-00; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:39:21 +0100 Message-ID: <000401bffc54$c3afe440$165608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <005401bffc49$391123e0$a4e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <004501bffc0a$11dc8380$1b3a63c3@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:35:22 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 ------------- \x/ ---------------- > > In the general case, yes. If, for example, they had ruled that the 4NT > bid was cancelled, they could assign a score on the basis that 4H > would go for 300 70% of the time and for 100 30% of the time - that > would be a correct use of L12C3. What they may not do is use L12C3 to > permit an action based on UI to be taken some percentage of the time. > +=+Well, as far as it goes, I agree absolutely with that. It does not necessarily bring everyone to absolutely the same conclusion. After all, if you wipe out the UI as well as the action based upon it you may well conclude, in some cases, that players would make the call that is in question because of the UI, part of the time. I am aware that different opinions exist (and have been given effect on occasion) as to whether the right approach is to look at the whole situation in an untroubled auction or whether the player has forfeited the right to have the possibility of the call he actually made taken into account in an auction where it is not based on UI. That is why I have said I think the AC should have explained its thinking +=+. > > But you (Peter) should be aware that the only reason DWS and I claim > to "know" all this is that we have discussed the situation thoroughly > on many occasions, and have a body of high-level experience to guide > us. It is possible - indeed, on the evidence of this case it is highly > probable - that this kind of thing has not been thought about much in > Australia. If that is so, it is not right to castigate the members of > the AC who arrived at what they doubtless thought was an equitable > outcome based on a desire to achieve justice. > +=+ And 12C3 does empower them to do equity as they see it. It places no reservation on this. So if this is what they thought equitable it is within the law for them to make that adjustment. On a general level there are no official guidelines that I have seen, other than those created by individual NBOs. As David B suggests the Australian NBO may not have given guidance. In England there is guidance and it conforms to DB's basis. ~ 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 Aug 2 19:51:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e729pET27459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 19:51:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e729p7t27455 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 19:51:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t3o993p57.telia.com [213.64.27.57]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA01131; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:51:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004601bffc77$dbee5280$391b40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: SV: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:50:00 -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 e729pAt27456 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Craig Senior Till: Bridge Laws Datum: den 1 augusti 2000 17:23 Ämne: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting >From: Peter Swensson >>Why have anyone to alerting take-out doubles in any position and then have >to asume that the alerted X have to be for take out? >>Please, change either alert rules or interpretation of situation. I should >changed the alert rules. Almost every one have been using TO for years so >they should not be alertable. > >Many now are not in the ACBL for much the reason you put forth. That is one >advantage of trying to make alerts be for the unexpected. But you do >sacrifice simplicity. > >Just alerting everything non natural is an easier concept...even if it does >mean alerting TOX's and Stayman. Once you start to except "obvious" >conventional actions from being alerted you face adjudging where you must >draw the line. With too many or unclear or constantly changing exceptions >you can increase memory burden significantly and interpose a barrier for the >social kitchen table player to enter tournament bridge. It isn't easy being >an NBO :-)). > >Craig Senior You have a point. We don't want to change regulations every five year, but every 30 year should be a feature;-) Another exemple is opening 2C, which have to be alerted in many system. 2C over 1NT and maybe 2C over 1X are often alerted. So why not stop alerting 1C opening, 1N opening, 2C opening, 2C over 1N (in non competitive bidding), 2C over 1X (in non competitive bidding) and TOX (in "first position"). Then we get a situation were alert use to contain some relevant information. Every player have to spend a few seconds (if they don't like suprices) on opponents CC to get the basic structure and every TD lives happily every after. /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 Wed Aug 2 20:22:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72AMJ827485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:22:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e72AMCt27481 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e72AM6A00798 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:22:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA04123 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:22:05 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:22:05 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07633 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:22:04 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA20609 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:22:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:22:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200008021022.LAA20609@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote: > > alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > >Here is the case : west / NS vul > > > > W (George) N E (your truly) S > > > > xxx K > > QJxxx Kxxx > > Axx KQ10xx > > xx Jxx > > > > pass 1S double (1) 2S > > 3H double (2) 4D (3) pass > > 4H pass pass pass > > > >4H was the obvious 1 down ; 4S would have made ; 5S would probably not. > > > >(1) 11+ HCP, guarantees 4+ hearts. Alerted, but *not asked* > >(2) general values > >(3) it follows from (1) that 4D is a fit-showing bid, enabling partner to > >decide what to do over 4S (he would have defended, of course). So George > >did not alert. > > > > I do not think this is a matter for the Law book at all. When to > alert is a matter of regulation, and whether you should alert in this > situation depends on those regulations. Certainly I would rule against > you in England, because I think you have breached English alerting regs. > Robin Which would be wrong in England: alerting the TOX or not alerting 4D? We could argue about the TOX, but it seems best to alert it. 4D is a bid of a second suit when a fit has been found, effectively a long suit trial bid. Why should it be alerted? 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 Aug 2 21:06:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72B5Uq27537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72B5Ft27521 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29866 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:05:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3987D769.2E441600@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:10:17 +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] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: > > > Declarer can play his cards to reveal the distribution as well as take > tricks. You'll be able to make inferences like, player with the odd > diamonds has the most points. It's not the most intuitively useful piece of > information, but it's hardly nothing. > > This is the sort of thing that turned two of the better players at my > college off from the ACBL. There's little to no opportunity for innovation. > Discovering the game and experimenting is what made it interesting for > them. They were great for party bridge. > At the same time, allowing these sorts of things would turn many timid > lol's away from the game. A pity you can't have both worlds. The problem just reduces to this : do we want the game to be made even more difficult ? Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are "new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them and this is an advantage that balances the disadvantage of creating your own problems. Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all was rosy. When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone still uses HUMs. The same is true for encryption. Yes, it can be fun to try to decrypt opponent's signals, but I believe the game is difficult enough as it is. > For high-level competitions, this should be considered fair. People > will encounter it quickly, give it thought, and learn how to cope as much as > possible. It's by far not a hopeless situation for declarer unless declarer > is incapable or unwilling to think. > So maybe the methods should not be banned but considered brown or yellow? -- 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 Aug 2 21:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72B5KJ27529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72B56t27506 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29840 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:05:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3987D18B.EF174383@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:45:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B655@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: > > > > > > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a > > > pass card from his bidding box? > > If a law is broken, most probably law 30. > To restrict the problem to the case where somebody takes out a pass card > where he wants to produce the stop card the word 'infraction' might not be > adequate, but an irregularity it is. > If LHO has made a call before we apply 25A law 21B tells us what to do. I > hope we all agree that LHO has based his call on misinformation then. And > law 16 tells us what to do with the extraneous information. > Sorry Ton, not agreed. This is not Misinformation. Don't wriggle out of it like that. I believe the Laws don't deal with this. I suggest the WBFLC decide in Maastricht that L21 is also to be applied to a change of call by means of L25A. Then we can go on until 2005 like that. -- 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 Aug 2 21:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72B5L927527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72B55t27505 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29833 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:04:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3987D07E.860A8D36@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:40:46 +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: [BLML] Appeals/psyches References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B640@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3976DD98.B8FAA831@village.uunet.be> <000e01bff28b$25d11aa0$c25908c3@dodona> <00d201bff390$df4f0040$61d3fcd8@noelbuge> <004301bff42a$fc043080$5f5608c3@dodona> <397AD6AA.B863E552@village.uunet.be> <002101bff4f5$b8e14880$955608c3@dodona> <002801bff4ff$f6ba3720$826860cb@laptop> <016f01bff940$390957c0$36d3fcd8@noelbuge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David is completely write when he wrote: > > Noel & Pamela wrote: > >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 you are psyching a specific type of call every two months or so > then you have reached the level at which there is likely to be a > partnership understanding. "There is likely to be" is the absolutely correct phrasing. > If partner remembers it and bids accordingly > then that is fielding the psyche. If this is happening then Wayne's > bidding is illegal. > There has to be a second condition : "bids accordingly". > But I do not see any reason to suppose it. Partners who are > determined you should not psyche will do the opposite to what you > suggest: push to the limit "to teach partner a lesson" if he has > psyched. Moreover, many actively ethical players will push in such > situations to make sure that they is no question of fielding. > And this keeps the psyche a psyche, even with partnership "experience". This needs to be told to the opponents. -- 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 Aug 2 21:06:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72B5QM27535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:26 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72B59t27509 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29852 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:05:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3987D4F1.9B1460CE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:59:45 +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: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <200008011758.NAA20538@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > In any "normal" system, 4D would show misfit and running > > from hearts. > > Pardon me, but I beg to differ. In a normal system, 4D would show > length or at least high card strength in diamonds. Why should it > show a misfit in hearts? > When 3He is doubled ? > > OTOH, your 4D shows a very fine fit. > > No, the takeout double showed that. The diamond bid didn't add > anything to what was already shown about hearts. > No, I believe the 4D showed a willingness to raise 3He to 4. The double showed hearts, but not a willingness to raise three to four. > I'm not familiar with the alert rules in Belgium, but I wouldn't > have thought it likely they would make this 4D bid alertable. > Alert rules in Belgium, as far as this is concerned, are just the same as everywhere else. Besides, this was in France. I do not believe Alert rules in France are any different (concerning this kind of bidding). > Furthermore, I have zero sympathy for NS. Why didn't South ask about > the alerted takeout double? It could have been anything: penalty, > strong NT, takeout with specific distribution (as it was), two-suiter, > maybe even a heart overcall. By bidding 2S without asking, South is > passing very serious UI to his partner. It is quite likely, IMHO, that > even if North had bid 4S, it would have been ruled illegal. South has > said, in effect, "I have a sound 2S bid, which I want to make no matter > what the double means." I don't see it that way. Some of the meanings you may ascribe to the double would be very strange in France and Belgium. The double is certainly for take-out (with something added), and I don't blaim anyone for not asking about the specific meaning. Now of course they might have asked about 4Di, after an alerted double, but since this was not alerted .... I have more sympathy for NS than you seem to have. Please also knwo that alerting in Europe is not as "good" as it hopefully is in the ACBL. Certainly in big international things, alerting is a somewhat random process. The alert of a take-out double is not needed, and probably opponents thought something like "stupid Belgians, alerting a take-out double". -- 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 Aug 2 21:06:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72B5Vw27538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72B5Ht27526 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29873 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:05:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3987D7BF.C8A0379E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:11:43 +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: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <398731B5.95CC9A6F@eduhi.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > > I just can't see lol's drawing deep conclusions from defenders' signals. > I fear some Eminent And Influential Administrator had a bad board > against opponents using such methods. > We do not forbid them in Austria, they are very rare and have not yet > been a problem. > I haven't heard they are a problem in Holland either. Which is a good time to start banning them. Be ahead of the innovators for once. -- 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 Aug 2 21:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72B5Ss27536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72B5Ct27517 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:05:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-188.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.188]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29856 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:05:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3987D56E.D371D9A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:01:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <3.0.6.32.20000801145118.00890100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > By the way, you can circumvent this interdiction in the following way : > "high-low shows a total even number of cards in the led suit and the suit > where signal is done, low-high shows odd". > I can't see how this can be disallowed, if Vinje signals "high-low on > trumps show 3 even suits, low-high whows three dod suits" are allowed. By > the way, Vinje signals occasionnally pass encrypted information too : if I > know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and > thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, while > declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my partner has. > > So, that ruling IS illogical. > No, under that regulation, Vinje signals are forbidden. Who said they were allowed ? -- 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 Aug 2 22:17:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72CGTH27670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:16:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72CGNt27666 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.89.20] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13JxRZ-0003Ei-00; Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:16:18 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bffc7b$6ff705a0$1459073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B655@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3987D18B.EF174383@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:16:05 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player removes a > > > > pass card from his bidding box? > > > > If a law is broken, most probably law 30. > > To restrict the problem to the case where somebody takes out a pass card > > where he wants to produce the stop card the word 'infraction' might not be > > adequate, but an irregularity it is. > > If LHO has made a call before we apply 25A law 21B tells us what to do. I > > hope we all agree that LHO has based his call on misinformation then. And > > law 16 tells us what to do with the extraneous information. > > > > Sorry Ton, not agreed. This is not Misinformation. Quite right. Of course it isn't. Sundry people have come up with the idea that to bid 1H is to inform the opponents that 1H is what you are bidding, in order to justify the use of L21B. But anyone at the bridge table who said "I wish to inform you that I am bidding one heart" instead of saying "One Heart" would be drummed out of the club. Misinformation is a term that is specifically used in the context of bridge for errors in explanations given to opponents, in response to questions or by means of alerts (and non-alerts). It is casuistry to argue that L21B applies to this case just because the people who made the Laws forgot to create something that actually does apply. > Don't wriggle out of it like that. The trouble is that there is no other way out of it. If player A makes a call, then his LHO makes a call, then player A wishes to change his call under L25A, there is nothing in the Laws to deal with the situation (in respect of the status of LHO's original call). Therefore, L21B is pressed into a service for which it was never intended, with the inevitable consequences. > I believe the Laws don't deal with this. That is correct. They do not. However, the lawmakers deal with this by agreeing among themselves (without telling anyone) that L21B will be used, thus adding to the extent to which players become hopelessly confused. > I suggest the WBFLC decide in Maastricht that L21 is also to > be applied to a change of call by means of L25A. > > Then we can go on until 2005 like that. I suggest the WBFLC decide in Maastricht that a call once made may not be changed. Then we can go on till 3005 with a game in which players know the rules. At least, we could, were it not for the laws on revokes, claims, psyches... It occurs to me that the following is at present permitted under the Laws: I have a marginal pre-empt, but decide to pass. I see LHO reach into his box to open the bidding, perhaps with a strong club. Now, of course, I wish I had opened. What do I do? I immediately apologise for having pulled out the pass card instead of the stop card, and open my pre-empt after all. To save people some time, I will point out here that the official response to this anomaly is as follows: the Laws are not designed to stop people cheating if they are determined to do so. If I want to do this I can go ahead, but the incident will be noted and repetition of it will lead to my being cursed by bell, book and candle. This is eyewash, but it's a popular and comforting fiction. 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 Aug 2 22:29:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72CTCp27714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:29:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72CT5t27710 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:29:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.89.20] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Jxdp-0006Wd-00; Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <003d01bffc7d$34dd67a0$1459073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" , "David Stevenson \(EBU\)" Cc: "Steve Barnfield" References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:28:44 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:41 AM > Subject: [BLML] President's Cup > > 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? There may be some flaw in my understanding of the above narrative. If I have it right, a player whose partnership failed in an abortive slam subsequently fouled the board after her opponents had left the table, by (in effect) interchanging the East and West curtain cards. (Your account says that she replaced the West card in the East slot, but does not say what happened to the East card, so this may be an error - there may have been two curtain cards in the East slot by the time the board arrived at the other Yellow table.) I observe that Manchester are credited with having won the President's Cup. All I can say is that had I been directing the event, their participation in it would have ceased from the moment that the above incident came to light. Best wishes David -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 2 22:46:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72Ck1f27733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:46:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72Cjtt27729 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:45:56 +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 FAA28418 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:47:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:47:08 -0400 Message-ID: <000901bffc7f$c50ef080$23c3e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3987D769.2E441600@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all > was rosy. > When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. > And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their > defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone > still uses HUMs. Bull%(@#$^ I have talked to a number of players about different classes of strong pass or weak opening systems. 90% of the players I talked to indicated that they switch away from these methods for one reason only: There were too many restrictions in place to allow players to viably practice these methods. I suppose the reason that no one is playing Brown sticker methods in Maastricht is that the players have concluded that these methods aren't effective either. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOYgYSyGkJ7YU62vZEQIkeACffa1bLZRchGzKAQyuJo4+KxDnMHcAoLi/ 4eTO6vuZk/YtHkOczpfMx5HK =M5Tx -----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 Aug 2 22:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72CvOv27746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:57:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e72CvFt27742 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:57:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from p79s06a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.102.122] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Jy4N-0002ac-00; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:56:23 +0100 Message-ID: <004401bffc80$daead620$7a6693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Herman De Wael" References: <3.0.6.32.20000801145118.00890100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3987D56E.D371D9A0@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:53:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 02 August 2000 09:01 Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > > ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > , Vinje signals occasionally pass encrypted information too : if I > > know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and > > thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, while > > declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my partner has. > > > > So, that ruling IS illogical. > > > > No, under that regulation, Vinje signals are forbidden. > Who said they were allowed ? > +=+ As I understand it the content of the message must be as open to declarer as to defender. Anything that defender or declarer is able to make of the message because of other information legally possessed is a separate question. No player is required to deny himself the benefit of seeing the cards he holds or the makeup of tricks played, nor for that matter of anything learnt from the legal auction. ~ 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 Aug 3 00:02:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72E1PM27779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:01:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e72E1Ht27775 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:01:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t2o993p112.telia.com [213.64.26.232]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA06608; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:01:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006701bffc9a$c8960020$391b40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: SV: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:59:47 -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 e72E1Lt27776 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >> Pardon me, but I beg to differ. In a normal system, 4D would show >> length or at least high card strength in diamonds. Why should it >> show a misfit in hearts? >> > >When 3He is doubled ? Alert regulation should not have anything to do with how you or any body else thing anyone should use their judgement in a specific situation. 4D was here natural and showed extra value. Why should the meaning of the double (=4+ H ) be alerted twice? >The alert of >a take-out double is not needed, and probably opponents >thought something like "stupid Belgians, alerting a take-out >double". > If you don't had to alert TOX and double was alerted I can't understand why 4D should be alerted. I don't think that alert regulation anywhere are that rigid that you can push them in details like this. Well, if they prefer to guess instead of asking let them do it. They will not have any sympaty from me. It is bad judgement to guess what opponent have; why protect those guys with bad judgement ;-) /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/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 3 00:41:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72Eevv27798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:40:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72Eeot27794 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:40:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA29704 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02735 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:40:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008021440.KAA02735@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > No, I believe the 4D showed a willingness to raise 3He to > 4. The double showed hearts, but not a willingness to raise > three to four. Certainly 4D showed willingness to play at the four level, but I would hardly expect that to require an alert. _Given that heart support has already been shown_, of course 4D shows willingness to hear a conversion to 4H, but that doesn't come from the 4D bid itself. > Please also knwo that alerting in Europe is not as "good" as > it hopefully is in the ACBL. Certainly in big international > things, alerting is a somewhat random process. The alert of > a take-out double is not needed, and probably opponents > thought something like "stupid Belgians, alerting a take-out > double". This, on the other hand, may make a difference. I disclaim familiarity with alerting rules and practices in Belgium or France. Around here (Boston area), it would be _bizarre_ to fail to ask about an alerted double of an opening bid. The double could mean _anything_, and normal takeout would be the last thing one would expect. I am still not inclined to protect NS from their own failure to ask the meaning of the alerted double, but my parochial experience could easily be at fault. The real question is still whether the alert regulations require the 4D bid to be alerted, and it is still not obvious to me why they should. The 4D bid doesn't carry any unexpected meaning that I can see. But again my vision may be limited by lack of experience. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 3 01:40:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72FeLP27847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:40:21 +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 e72FeEt27843 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:40:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t2o993p93.telia.com [213.64.26.213]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA08256; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:40:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00fc01bffca8$9f9af0a0$391b40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: SV: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:39:04 -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 e72FeHt27844 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Herman De Wael Till: Bridge Laws Datum: den 2 augusti 2000 11:46 Ämne: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions >alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >> >> By the way, you can circumvent this interdiction in the following way : >> "high-low shows a total even number of cards in the led suit and the suit >> where signal is done, low-high shows odd". >> I can't see how this can be disallowed, if Vinje signals "high-low on >> trumps show 3 even suits, low-high whows three dod suits" are allowed. By >> the way, Vinje signals occasionnally pass encrypted information too : if I >> know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and >> thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, while >> declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my partner has. >> >> So, that ruling IS illogical. >> > >No, under that regulation, Vinje signals are forbidden. >Who said they were allowed ? > We all know that we have to play with 13 cards. In every deal we get this kind of information. In every board will you have knowledge of partners points before the declarer due to logic and some times you are able to "see" partners distribution base on you own card distribution before declarer. My partner can always see when I'm falsecarding to show his highpoint value and so on. It is weird to claim that declarer have right to same information as the defenders. Declarer have only right to the ALL information which have passed over the table by cards and calls. Vinje is not encrypt information!!! It shows only length in three suits of four. Sometimes declarer get the key before defenders do. /Peter >-- >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 Thu Aug 3 01:49:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72FnEi27863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:49:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e72Fn7t27859 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:49:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from p8fs03a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.115.144] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13JcRg-0004Pi-00; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:51:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002001bffc98$e29c8400$907393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "David Burn" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B655@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3987D18B.EF174383@village.uunet.be> <001b01bffc7b$6ff705a0$1459073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - applicability of L21B Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:40:22 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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 Cc: Max Bavin Sent: 02 August 2000 13:16 Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A ............................................................... ----------- \x/ ---------- > > I believe the Laws don't deal with this. > > That is correct. They do not. However, the lawmakers deal with this by > agreeing among themselves (without telling anyone) that L21B will be > used, thus adding to the extent to which players become hopelessly > confused. > +=+ Hey, stop right there! I am not aware that 'the lawmakers' have done anything about the problem. I am not aware that 'the lawmakers' have even taken stock to establish whether there is a problem. I am one of seventeen people who would be involved before any change or fresh interpretation of the law was agreed by 'the lawmakers'. I am in fact the one who has the responsibility for communicating matters to them. I have no knowledge of any consultation on the subject at all. We have agreed nothing between ourselves so there is nothing to tell. Every one of us probably has a personal opinion on it. But if it happens it is in the hands of the Directors and the appeals committees for the time being. With such local guidance as they may receive. ~ 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 Aug 3 02:58:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72Gvve27900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:57:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72Gvit27896 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:57:44 +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 13K1pq-000MEe-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:57:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 14:07:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <200008021022.LAA20609@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200008021022.LAA20609@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > >David wrote: >> >> alain gottcheiner wrote: >> > >> >Here is the case : west / NS vul >> > >> > W (George) N E (your truly) S >> > >> > xxx K >> > QJxxx Kxxx >> > Axx KQ10xx >> > xx Jxx >> > >> > pass 1S double (1) 2S >> > 3H double (2) 4D (3) pass >> > 4H pass pass pass >> > >> >4H was the obvious 1 down ; 4S would have made ; 5S would probably not. >> > >> >(1) 11+ HCP, guarantees 4+ hearts. Alerted, but *not asked* >> >(2) general values >> >(3) it follows from (1) that 4D is a fit-showing bid, enabling partner to >> >decide what to do over 4S (he would have defended, of course). So George >> >did not alert. >> > >> >> I do not think this is a matter for the Law book at all. When to >> alert is a matter of regulation, and whether you should alert in this >> situation depends on those regulations. Certainly I would rule against >> you in England, because I think you have breached English alerting regs. >> >Robin > >Which would be wrong in England: alerting the TOX or not alerting 4D? Not alerting 4D. In the absence of an lert oppos are likely to take it as a purely natural bid. >We could argue about the TOX, but it seems best to alert it. > >4D is a bid of a second suit when a fit has been found, effectively >a long suit trial bid. Why should it be alerted? How do you know it is? If I play a double as guaranteeing four of the opposite major, then I would expect my partner sometimes to bid that major with three cards [I have seen it happen] and 4D might be a perfectly natural non-forcing bid. This pair does not play it that way? Good, then let them alert. -- 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 Thu Aug 3 03:25:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72HP1E27955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:25:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e72HOqt27947 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:24:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 42353 invoked for bounce); 2 Aug 2000 17:24:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.23) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 17:24:45 -0000 Message-ID: <021f01bffca6$c10d2ca0$17291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3987D769.2E441600@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 19:20:31 +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 "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are > "new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them and > this is an advantage that balances the disadvantage of > creating your own problems. > > Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all > was rosy. > When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. > And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their > defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone > still uses HUMs. I strongly disagree. People tend no longer to use those methods because - many TDs (even at international championships) will allow opponents to play the "hesitate and ask defense" against unfamiliar methods. Example: "Pre-Alert: we play a 10-12 NT in all positions" [...] "1NT" "How strong is this?" (asks questions and then passes) Needless to say, this hand always has about 11-14 HCP, and advancer then balances with an 8 count. [After the Pre-Alert, such questions should be an automatic full board PP. Try to get an adjusted score on such a board.] - Some ACs will almost automatically rule against pairs which play nonstandard methods. - there are regulations in place which prevent pairs from testing those methods. If the only tournaments in which HUMs are allowed are the semifinals of international championships, nobody will play those methods. 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 Aug 3 03:25:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72HOxW27954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e72HOnt27945 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:24:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 42313 invoked for bounce); 2 Aug 2000 17:24:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.23) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 17:24:43 -0000 Message-ID: <021d01bffca6$bfce4400$17291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> <003d01bffc7d$34dd67a0$1459073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 19:00:48 +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 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 Burn" 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 > There may be some flaw in my > understanding of the above narrative. If > I have it right, a player whose partnership > failed in an abortive slam > subsequently fouled the board after her opponents had left the table, > by (in effect) interchanging the East and West curtain cards. (Your > account says that she replaced the West card in the East slot, but > does not say what happened to the East card, so this may be an error - > there may have been two curtain cards in the East slot by the time the > board arrived at the other Yellow table.) > > I observe that Manchester are credited with having won the President's > Cup. All I can say is that had I been directing the event, their > participation in it would have ceased from the moment that the above > incident came to light. This seems way too harsh. I can understand a PP for - fouling the board and - illegally looking at curtain cards But as long as evidence does not strongly support the assumption that N fouled the board deliberately, I see no reason for the draconic penalty David Burn has suggested. 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 Aug 3 03:26:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72HPsN27978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:25:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e72HPit27971 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA23434 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:25:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: <00d901bffc07$fbbcfaa0$6a5408c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+I make no comment on what should > be considered fair or desirable. What I > have gathered to be an argument for > the prohibition is that part of the > essential nature of the game is for > declarer to have equal access with > defenders to the content of messages > they exchange. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Perhaps you should try "Sir, this is not argument - it is specious twaddle. It is the meaning of the message that must be clear - not the content." Take a situation where dummy holds CKJ. Each defender makes a (true) signal meaning "I have a club honour." The content of one message is "I have the club Q" the other "I have the CA" - of course only the defenders can understand the content - declarer lacks the key. SOs wishing to ban encrypted signals should find a better reason. Note: "Our research tells us that permitting them would drive down membership undermining our revenues and ability to promote the game." *is* a valid reason (assuming decent research). 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 Thu Aug 3 03:26:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72HPsT27979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:25:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e72HPit27970 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA23396 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:25:35 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:25 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again 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 The Scenario You cut into a table at your local London club where a young man is playing. Although you have seen him a couple of times you have never played with him. You introduce yourself and your name appears to ring no bells - he introduces himself as Richard. On the last hand of the first Chicago he finds a 1S overcall of your 1C on Jxxx,x,xxx,KJxxx. You accept a quiet 1700 from 4Sx. As he scores up you see the surname Probst - for it is he - mildly renowned in the annals of BLML/RGB. You cut him for the second rubber, agree weak (11.5-14) and double, and second hand (nv vs vul) he opens 1NT - do you alert? The bidding proceeds -P-P-X-2C, do you alert now? Opponents peter out in 3H. The auction, play to the first three tricks, dummy and your own holding mean you are now *sure* he holds 9-10pts with 6 clubs to AK - do you say anything? Assuming you do, declarer subsequently plays him for DK (you have it) to go one off - she (lead in hand) could have endplayed you as below. - - Jxx x - - x x ATx Q8x - - x - K9x - Ruling anyone? Would it differ had I alerted earlier/said nothing at trick 3? The South hand was Jxxx,QTx,K9xx,QJ North started with Qx,9x,Jxx,AKxxxx and with HJ onside 1Nxx would have made if the silly sod hadn't prematurely pulled to 2C. 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 Thu Aug 3 03:35:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72HZoL27997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:35:50 +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 (f195.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72HZit27993 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:35:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:35:37 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.18 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:35:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2000 17:35:37.0074 (UTC) FILETIME=[11AA4520:01BFFCA8] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Herman De Wael > > alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > > , Vinje signals occasionally pass encrypted information too : if I > > > know my partner has 4 clubs (because the second one gets ruffed), and > > > thereafter shows 3 odd suits, I know the count in all of his suits, >while > > > declarer doesn't, because he can't be sure of how many clubs my >partner >has. > > > > > > So, that ruling IS illogical. > > > > No, under that regulation, Vinje signals are forbidden. > > Who said they were allowed ? > > >+=+ As I understand it the content of the >message must be as open to declarer >as to defender. Anything that defender >or declarer is able to make of the >message because of other information >legally possessed is a separate question. >No player is required to deny himself the >benefit of seeing the cards he holds or the >makeup of tricks played, nor for that matter >of anything learnt from the legal auction. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This is still quite strange. The content of all encrypted signals I've considered are all: if p then q (else w), where p is more likely to be known by my partner than declarer. e.g. spades are trump, "If I have more spades than you then I want a heart return otherwise a diamond." Everyone at the table has access to that information. The inferences that can be made from it depend heavily on the cards that you hold. Arguably, the more useful inferences are given to the defenders first. So could you regulate conditional signals? How does this situation differ from this situation like many people already signal? "It's attitude unless I couldn't care about that. Then it's count unless I already know. Then it must be suit preference." -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 Aug 3 06:49:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72Klue28088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:47:56 +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 e72Klnt28084 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:47:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.130] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13K5QW-000CaB-00; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:47:44 +0100 Message-ID: <006601bffcc2$e6ba7ea0$825908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> <003d01bffc7d$34dd67a0$1459073e@D457300> <021d01bffca6$bfce4400$17291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:41:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup > This seems way too harsh. > I can understand a PP for > - fouling the board > and > - illegally looking at curtain cards > But as long as evidence does not strongly > support the assumption that N fouled the > board deliberately, I see no reason for > the draconic penalty David Burn has suggested. > +=+ It does seem harsh, since we assume the likelihood of a malicious action is very remote. No doubt an artificial AS is to be awarded, together with a disciplinary penalty of say 2 V.P.? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 3 09:33:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e72NVbD28201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:31:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e72NVTt28197 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:31:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.230] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13K7yt-000Fbo-00; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:31:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001501bffcd9$c3c91020$e65908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:30:02 +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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions ------------- \x/ -------------- > Take a situation where dummy holds CKJ. Each > defender makes a (true) signal meaning "I have a > club honour." The content of one message is "I have > the club Q" the other "I have the CA" - of course > only the defenders> can understand the content - > declarer lacks the key. > +=+ Whilst I would hesitate to brand this statement as twaddle or poppycock, I would be prepared to go as far as saying that it is mightily imperceptive. The content of each message is no more than "I have an honour". The identification of which honour derives from a comparison of the message with the other evidence available, in fact from an examination by each of the defenders of the cards visible to him. The essential difference between this and an encrypted message is that encryption seeks to impede declarer's access to the information passed ('the content') in the message, and therefore the opportunity of relating it to such other information as he may have. I believe one may refer to the *meaning* of an encrypted message as "If we know ..... then I have an honour in clubs but if we know the opposite then I have no honour in clubs". This is why I have preferred reference to 'content' and 'information passed'. ~ 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 Aug 3 10:46:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e730jxl28257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:45:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e730jrt28253 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:45:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.90.90] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13K98t-000171-00; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:45:47 +0100 Message-ID: <000901bffce4$23d3f660$5a5a063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Thomas Dehn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> <003d01bffc7d$34dd67a0$1459073e@D457300> <021d01bffca6$bfce4400$17291dc2@rabbit> <006601bffcc2$e6ba7ea0$825908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:45:34 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup > > Grattan Endicott > This seems way too harsh. > > I can understand a PP for > > - fouling the board > > and > > - illegally looking at curtain cards > > But as long as evidence does not strongly > > support the assumption that N fouled the > > board deliberately, I see no reason for > > the draconic penalty David Burn has suggested. > > > +=+ It does seem harsh, since we assume > the likelihood of a malicious action is very > remote. No doubt an artificial AS is to be > awarded, together with a disciplinary > penalty of say 2 V.P.? ~ G ~ +=+ We keep on assuming that the likelihood of a malicious action is very remote. That is why the game of bridge is in its present state with regard to the Laws. But the likelihood of a malicious action is not very remote at all, and the Laws of the game should be so constituted that anything that could be construed as malicious is in fact so construed. After all, the Laws of every other sport work on exactly that principle (and so did the Laws of bridge when they were first drawn up). If someone gives a Mars bar to a racehorse, that horse will be disqualified if it wins the race and is dope-tested, despite the fact that the giver of the Mars bar had no malicious intent (and neither, of course, did the racehorse who ate it). If a golfer signs for a 74 when he has taken a 73, that golfer will be disqualified instead of winning the tournament, despite the fact that he didn't do it on purpose (and wouldn't have done it if he had known what he was doing). Racehorse owners and golfers have no problem at all with the Laws of their sport - they accept, as does every other sportsman, that the Laws are designed so that there is no possibility of the guilty escaping unscathed, even if this means that the innocent but foolish are harshly treated. It is only bridge players who expect the Laws of the game to treat them differently. There is no moral, logical, or empirical justification for this expectation. It renders the Laws confused and ineffectual, it renders the game unworthy of being called any kind of a sport - let alone, God save us, an Olympic sport. DWS has recently said that he believes the Laws of the game should have been from the outset as I wish them to be at the present time, but it is too late to change them now. It is not. Bridge is about eighty years old. I am sure we would all like it to be a sport in a hundred and eighty, or eight hundred, years from now. But it won't be, unless we adopt an approach very different from the current one (but very similar to that adopted in the sports which assuredly will survive into the next millennium but one). 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 Aug 3 11:06:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7316XK28274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:06:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7316Qt28270 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:06:27 +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 13K9Sj-0005pt-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:06:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:05:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again 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 >The Scenario > >You cut into a table at your local London club where a young man is >playing. Although you have seen him a couple of times you have never >played with him. You introduce yourself and your name appears to ring no >bells - he introduces himself as Richard. > >On the last hand of the first Chicago he finds a 1S overcall of your 1C on >Jxxx,x,xxx,KJxxx. You accept a quiet 1700 from 4Sx. As he scores up you >see the surname Probst - for it is he - mildly renowned in the annals of >BLML/RGB. > The "silly sod" did say he'd had a bad session at the Wood :)) I don't think you need to alert a suspicion btw, 4 hands is going some to set up a CPU. The "silly sod" also came second in the pre-trials for the UK Open Team. He must be doing some things right some of the time. He's also in trouble with the YC (mainly me) for a session of frivolous bidding last week. I suppose I'll have to suspend him soon. (Like father, like son) 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 Thu Aug 3 12:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e731xwk28298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:59:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e731xqt28294 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.90.90] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KAIU-0006BH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:59:47 +0100 Message-ID: <003d01bffcee$7a2f4f00$5a5a063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3987D769.2E441600@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:59:35 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > The problem just reduces to this : do we want the game to be > made even more difficult ? > > Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are > "new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them and > this is an advantage that balances the disadvantage of > creating your own problems. Quite so. When the takeout double was first conceived, the opposition to it from established players was vociferous. No doubt, had there been such a thing as a WBF Systems Policy in those days, none of us would know what to do with a three-suited hand short in RHO's one-level opening. Fortunately, that was then and this is now. > Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all > was rosy. > When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. > And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their > defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone > still uses HUMs. >From my position in the front row of the stalls, the picture is somewhat different. None of the pairs who used to play HUMs at international level have stopped playing them because the opponents now know what to do against them. They have stopped playing them because the devices employed by officialdom to prevent their use have placed them and their teams at so great a disadvantage that any systemic benefit would not outweigh the cost. > The same is true for encryption. Yes, it can be fun to try > to decrypt opponent's signals, but I believe the game is > difficult enough as it is. Splendid. Theoretical advances in the game of bridge are now forbidden because Herman de Wael can't keep up with them. Lest I should be accused of an unwarranted personal attack, I do not direct these remarks specifically at HdW. Let me draw your attention to one of the most ludicrous bridge articles ever written, by Alan Truscott in the daily bulletin at the most recent Bermuda Bowl. There, he said that (in effect) players should not be allowed to play complicated methods because other players would be placed at a disadvantage by having to understand what those methods were and to adapt their own systems accordingly. By what right do we, the current generation of bridge players, seek to ensure that there shall be nothing for future generations of bridge players to do? > So maybe the methods should not be banned but considered > brown or yellow? There's times when you'll think that you mightn't, There's times when you'll know that you might, But the things you will learn from the Yellow and Brown, They'll help you a lot with the White. Rudyard Kipling 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 Aug 3 14:07:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7346oL28361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:06:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7346jt28357 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:06:45 +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 OAA29976; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:03:17 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:03:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions To: dburn@btinternet.com...C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:03:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 03/08/2000 02:01:02 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: "Quite so. When the takeout double was first conceived, the opposition to it from established players was vociferous. No doubt, had there been such a thing as a WBF Systems Policy in those days, none of us would know what to do with a three-suited hand short in RHO's one-level opening. Fortunately, that was then and this is now." In Canberra we have a relaxed regulatory attitude to multi-meaning two bids, where there is no anchor suit for the weak option (what the WBF would call a Brown Sticker Convention). As a result of playing against these *nefarious devices*, these two bids have been adopted into the systems of many average players and LOLs. 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 Aug 3 15:40:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e735e8828411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:40:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e735dst28398 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id GAA18310 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:39:46 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:39 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: <001501bffcd9$c3c91020$e65908c3@dodona> Grattan wrote: > The content of each message is no more than > "I have an honour". The identification of which honour > derives from a comparison of the message with the > other evidence available, in fact from an examination > by each of the defenders of the cards visible to him. Which sounds like a not too bad first attempt at describing encrypted signals. Certainly a signal in the circumstances he discusses can be described in a way that makes "sound" encrypted. To balance that encrypted signals can be explained as eg "He has either more than half the defensive points and a probable club honour OR fewer than half the defensive points and a probable diamond honour." > The essential difference between this and an > encrypted message is that encryption seeks to > impede declarer's access to the information > passed ('the content') in the message, and > therefore the opportunity of relating it to such > other information as he may have. And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of "Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit preference, d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. We use the information available to determine which partner is likely to wish us to use and then do so." Any encrypted signal is *more* likely to pass information to declarer than the above approach (at least if declarer stops to think). It seems obvious that any approach to bidding or play should have "maximising the useful information shared while minimising the useful information transmitted to opponents" as a desirable feature. [Although not if this done by inadequate disclosure]. Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because they are unfair" is ridiculous. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 3 15:40:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e735e8M28410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:40:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e735dtt28399 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id GAA18322 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:39:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:39 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again 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: > The "silly sod" did say he'd had a bad session at the Wood :)) I don't > think you need to alert a suspicion btw, 4 hands is going some to set up > a CPU. It's not really a CPU. Richard is probably unaware of how many of his psyches are reported here. He certainly didn't know, or even suspect, that I read about them. My discomfort arose from the fact that I was almost certainly more aware of his proclivities than our opponents. (I had intended to "pre-alert" but forgot). > The "silly sod" also came second in the pre-trials for the UK Open Team. > He must be doing some things right some of the time. As he did at the Wood most of the time:-) It is easier to recover from a couple of 1700s at imps. > He's also in trouble with the YC (mainly me) for a session of frivolous > bidding last week. Just post the information here. We'll be ready to give him another bad session when he tips up. Cheers Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 3 15:40:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e735e8P28412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:40:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e735dtt28400 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:39:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id GAA18331 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:39:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:39 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 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: > OK, let me put it another way. I decide I am ruling NS +150. Please > tell me why I am wrong. Just this once I'd rather say why you were right:-) Mythical Facts: AC Chairman (to East): "Why did you ask the question?" East: "I suspected a bidding misunderstanding and wanted to create a UI situation to make it harder for NS to recover." AC have quick discussion. AC Chairman (to East): "We believe that asking for this reason, like asking for partner's benefit, is an abuse of the right to ask questions" East: "Oh dear, I am sorry, I hadn't realised that, I won't do it again" AC Chairman: "That's fine but in this case we must treat you as the offending side as well!" AC Chairman:"While we recognise that pass was an LA we are are sensitive to the fact that South was put in a difficult position by the illegal question, particularly since South had divined its intent." We invoke L12c3 and feel that equity is best served by going back to the key moment and assuming the question was not asked. Absent the UI south is free to bid as he chooses and we estimate this would be x% of 4H*-1, y% of 4H*-2 and z% of 5C=. This is 150 NS. Someone else can do the maths (although z must be <75). Personally I feel that asking questions solely to create UI is somewhat dubious - I would not criticise an AC for trying to discourage 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 Thu Aug 3 16:08:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7368N228449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:08:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7368Gt28445 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:08:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.9] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13KEAu-000J33-00; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 07:08:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01bffd11$32a7eac0$095408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Paul Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Two days in Heaven Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 07:06:57 +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; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.103]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14275 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:25:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:00:33 +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] A bit off-topic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well, only a bit, it's more on-topic than cats or dogs. But there's no ruling involved, at least I don't think there is. So please excuse me beforehand, and join me on one hand: I'll tell the story with you in the main seat. You're playing teams, against the best team of your club (fringe of Belgian top) and none vulnerable you pick up in second hand : K 3 2 K Q 10 9 7 6 2 K 10 J RHO passes and you open one heart (5-card majors). Opponents pass throughout, and partner bids 2 clubs (2/1 GF). You keep quiet with 2 Hearts, which nearly always promises a sixth one. Partner raises to 4 Hearts, LHO leads the 4 of diamonds (3/5 th) and this is dummy : Q 9 8 6 4 J 4 3 Q 9 8 A K K 3 2 K Q 10 9 7 6 2 K 10 J You explain to partner that 2 Clubs really promises them and that he should have bid 1 Spade, but now to the play. Low diamond from dummy, for the Ace, and a club switch. Your turn. -- 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 Aug 3 18:47:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e738l7628522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:47:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e738l3t28518 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:47:03 +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 e738l2K10789 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:47:02 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:47:01 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] False Claim in Canberra Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a club game on Monday night, I was playing an apparently hopeless 3NT and had this spade suit to play: KQT4 A82 I cashed the king and crossed to the ace. Both my opponents echoed and I continued to play in tempo to the queen of spades, dropping SJ63 with RHO. RHO now whinged that I hadn't even asked what their count convention was. I replied that I hadn't cared what count they played, and continued saying "If I was a woman, I could claim that it was woman's intuition..." Quick as a flash, RHO summoned the Director and advised him that declarer had just made a false claim and that he was entitled to a score adjustment. 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 Thu Aug 3 18:47:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e738lLi28528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:47:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e738lFt28524 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:47:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:43:17 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A bit off-topic Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:40:11 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: 03. August 2000 10:01 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: [BLML] A bit off-topic > > > Well, only a bit, it's more on-topic than cats or dogs. > But there's no ruling involved, at least I don't think there > is. > So please excuse me beforehand, and join me on one hand: > > I'll tell the story with you in the main seat. You're > playing teams, against the best team of your club (fringe of > Belgian top) and none vulnerable you pick up in second hand > : > > K 3 2 > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > K 10 > J > > RHO passes and you open one heart (5-card majors). > > Opponents pass throughout, and partner bids 2 clubs (2/1 > GF). > > You keep quiet with 2 Hearts, which nearly always promises a > sixth one. > > Partner raises to 4 Hearts, LHO leads the 4 of diamonds (3/5 > th) and > this is dummy : > > Q 9 8 6 4 > J 4 3 > Q 9 8 > A K > > > K 3 2 > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > K 10 > J > > You explain to partner that 2 Clubs really promises them and > that he should have bid 1 Spade, but now to the play. > > Low diamond from dummy, for the Ace, and a club switch. > Club, spade discard and a heart to the king. Somebody ruffed the second club? Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 3 19:41:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e739f7A28564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:41:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e739f3t28560 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:41:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la135185 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:42:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-214-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.83]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Configurable-MailRouter V2.9 13/9132704); 03 Aug 2000 19:42:16 Message-ID: <023201bffd93$28576820$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 07:38:25 +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 David Burn wrote: >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>>..... I have read some stuff about how the AC should know that >>>L12C3 does not apply. How does anyone on BLML know this? > >Well, you and I "know", or think we know, that the varying of a score >to do equity is not appropriate when the issue is solely one of >whether an action that may have been taken as a result of UI is >allowed to stand. We "know" that one of only two outcomes should >be considered by the TD and/or the AC: > >(1) The action is deemed not chosen over another by reason of the >UI, in which case the action is permitted and what followed from it >at the table remains the result; or > >(2) The action is deemed chosen over another by reason of the UI, >in which case it is cancelled. In this case, it is now possible for the >TD and/or the AC to assign a result based on the probabilities of >various outcomes that might have happened had the illegal action >not occurred. Ah, progress is being made. I wrote my previous posting not to express what I "know", but to try to explain how the AC members, who **never** see non-Australian Laws stuff (except perhaps the CoP which has been publicised locally), might have interpreted the words in the Laws. My aim is not to castigate anyone, but to work out how to prevent well-meaning AC members in countries outside the two major Zones coming up with their own misinterpretation of this rather crucial aspect of the Laws. Now that L12C3 exists, I think that perhaps we could overcome the problem if the middle of the last sentence of L12A2 were changed to something like: "play to continue, standing ready to cancel the illegal action and assign an adjusted score...". That new wording would be likely to prevent the misinterpretation which happened. I realise that we all (i.e. the lucky ones who have computers and access to BLM) don't need such guidance to know what we're meant to do, but perhaps the Australian AC members do. And it's not as if Australia is the least civilised country in the world when it comes to appeals. >You and I "know" that an AC must make its mind up about the >potentially illegal action one way or another. This is not a question >of different procedures applying in different jurisdictions; it is a >question of what the Laws say. A player in possession of UI may not >select from among LA's one that could demonstrably have been >suggested over another by the UI (to paraphrase L16). Well, if a >player may not do something, then when he does it, it must be >undone in its entirety by the TD or AC in order for them to be in a >position to assign a score. Yes, "may not", which for those of us who have non-ACBL copies of the FLB, is defined in the Scope as "just short of *must not*", which seems to imply that it doesn't have to be undone always; otherwise the words in L16A would be *must not* wouldn't they? Can someone tell me why the words in L16A aren't *must not*? I know that the answer lies not in the USA 95%/England 70% stuff, since that is about the definition of LA, not the definition of *may not*. 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 Aug 3 20:02:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73A27k28581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:02:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e73A20t28577 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:02:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16868 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 10:01:50 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 3 Aug 2000 10:01:50 -0000 Message-ID: <39894349.72671679@eduhi.at> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:02:49 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] False Claim in Canberra References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham schrieb: > > In a club game on Monday night, I was playing an apparently hopeless 3NT > and had this spade suit to play: > > KQT4 > A82 > > I cashed the king and crossed to the ace. Both my opponents echoed and I > continued to play in tempo to the queen of spades, dropping SJ63 with RHO. > > RHO now whinged that I hadn't even asked what their count convention was. > > I replied that I hadn't cared what count they played, and continued saying > "If I was a woman, I could claim that it was woman's intuition..." > > Quick as a flash, RHO summoned the Director and advised him that declarer > had just made a false claim and that he was entitled to a score adjustment. Ridiculous: "ex falso quodlibet", i.e. (A => B) is TRUE whenever A is FALSE, is a well-established logical fact; obviously, the claim is good. How about a course in Aristotelian logic for a PP? Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 3 20:58:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73Aw9t28616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:58:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e73Aw2t28608 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:58:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa435730 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:59:24 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-54.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.54]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ecological-MailRouter V2.9 15/57814); 03 Aug 2000 20:59:23 Message-ID: <036801bffd9d$eed20fa0$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:55:32 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >The problem just reduces to this : do we want the game to be >made even more difficult ? > >Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are >"new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them... Herman, I've never met you and have no idea whether you're 20 years old or 70 years old, but now I know.... You're old ... because your comments above are those of an old person. Young people simply don't think like that. The young people of my acquaintance use logic and commonsense. >Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all >was rosy. NO. >When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. NO. >And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their >defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone >still uses HUMs. MISLEADING. In Australia and New Zealand , HUMS proliferated when and indeed after heaps of us had our own defences at the table. As pointed out elsewhere, HUMs died here when our players were no longer able to play them throughout World Championships. Under-26 pairs in Australia no longer play HUMs in serious events because HUMs are banned at the World Junior Teams. >The same is true for encryption. Yes, it can be fun to try >to decrypt opponent's signals, but I believe the game is >difficult enough as it is. There we go again. Let's keep the game the way it was in our heyday and not let these younger people play it better than we do. 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 Aug 3 20:58:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73AwA428617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:58:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e73Aw4t28612 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va435729 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:59:23 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-54.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.54]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Earthy-MailRouter V2.9 15/57814); 03 Aug 2000 20:59:22 Message-ID: <036701bffd9d$ee11cce0$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:40:10 +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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote >>>>>The laws state that : >>>>>1) you have to alert anything unexpected >>>>>2) you don't have to alert meanings that >>>>> follow from bridge logic only >>>>>...... >>>>>pass 1S double(1) 2S >>>>>3H double(2) 4D(3) pass >>>>>4H pass pass pass >>>>>1) 11+ HCP, guarantees 4+ hearts. Alerted, but *not asked* >>>>>2) general values >>>>>3) it follows from (1) that 4D is a fit-showing bid Steve Wilner wrote: >Certainly 4D showed willingness to play at the four level, but I >would hardly expect that to require an alert. Given that heart >support has already been shown..... Except for David Stevenson's sensible comments, I think you're all off-beam on this one. The 3H bidder was raising hearts rather than introducing a new suit. 3H therefore should have been alerted, if the above "laws" quoted by Alain are the SO's alerting rules for this event. The 3H raiser could have much less in hearts than a 3H bidder, and the opponents are entitled to know this. Whether 4D should have been alerted is therefore irrelevant. I think that the failure to alert the 3H raise (could it have been done on AKQ trebleton occasionally? e.g xx, AKQ, Jxxx, xxxx) was an infraction, and I would adjust the score to 4S+5. Oops, I feel like a disciple of Bobby Wolff.... if you play unusual methods, then please be as actively ethical as possible about full and complete disclosure. A similar situation is the simple one with transfers. Some SOs specify whether you should alert both the transfer and the acceptance of the transfer. Fair enough. A good analogy to this case, however, is not transfer responses to 1NT, but is IMO the transfer response to a strong 2C, in which case both the transfer and the acceptance should obviously always be alerted . Based on this analogy (*had they asked, they'd know* being the analogy), 4D is alertable. 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 Aug 3 21:01:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73B1pD28639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:01:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73B1it28635 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:01:45 +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 13KIkv-0002AK-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:01:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 03:37:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> <003d01bffc7d$34dd67a0$1459073e@D457300> <021d01bffca6$bfce4400$17291dc2@rabbit> <006601bffcc2$e6ba7ea0$825908c3@dodona> <000901bffce4$23d3f660$5a5a063e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <000901bffce4$23d3f660$5a5a063e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >We keep on assuming that the likelihood of a malicious action is very >remote. That is why the game of bridge is in its present state with >regard to the Laws. But the likelihood of a malicious action is not >very remote at all, and the Laws of the game should be so constituted >that anything that could be construed as malicious is in fact so >construed. > >After all, the Laws of every other sport work on exactly that >principle (and so did the Laws of bridge when they were first drawn >up). If someone gives a Mars bar to a racehorse, that horse will be >disqualified if it wins the race and is dope-tested, despite the fact >that the giver of the Mars bar had no malicious intent (and neither, >of course, did the racehorse who ate it). If a golfer signs for a 74 >when he has taken a 73, that golfer will be disqualified instead of >winning the tournament, despite the fact that he didn't do it on >purpose (and wouldn't have done it if he had known what he was doing). >Racehorse owners and golfers have no problem at all with the Laws of >their sport - they accept, as does every other sportsman, that the >Laws are designed so that there is no possibility of the guilty >escaping unscathed, even if this means that the innocent but foolish >are harshly treated. > >It is only bridge players who expect the Laws of the game to treat >them differently. There is no moral, logical, or empirical >justification for this expectation. It renders the Laws confused and >ineffectual, it renders the game unworthy of being called any kind of >a sport - let alone, God save us, an Olympic sport. DWS has recently >said that he believes the Laws of the game should have been from the >outset as I wish them to be at the present time, but it is too late to >change them now. It is not. Bridge is about eighty years old. I am >sure we would all like it to be a sport in a hundred and eighty, or >eight hundred, years from now. But it won't be, unless we adopt an >approach very different from the current one (but very similar to that >adopted in the sports which assuredly will survive into the next >millennium but one). Suppose we assume that it is possible to make such a change - in which case David and I think it desirable - is it fair to suddenly make a determination based on this new approach? Is it right for the penalty for putting a curtain back wrongly to suddenly increase by so much without warning? -- 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 Thu Aug 3 21:19:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73BH7128656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:17:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73BH0t28652 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 21:17:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:05:07 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [BLML] False Claim in Canberra Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:04:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >In a club game on Monday night, I was playing an apparently hopeless 3NT >and had this spade suit to play: > >KQT4 >A82 > >I cashed the king and crossed to the ace. Both my opponents echoed and I >continued to play in tempo to the queen of spades, dropping SJ63 with RHO. > >RHO now whinged that I hadn't even asked what their count convention was. > >I replied that I hadn't cared what count they played, and continued saying >"If I was a woman, I could claim that it was woman's intuition..." > >Quick as a flash, RHO summoned the Director and advised him that declarer >had just made a false claim and that he was entitled to a score adjustment. > >Mark Abraham RHO was joking, right? I don't see a claim at all, let alone a false one. If it was your statement about woman's intuition, then it is (mathematically) true. Obviously, you could claim that it was woman's intuition if you were a woman. But, since you are not a woman, the statement is true. And if RHO was not joking, I can only say that it is not forbidden NOT to ask about agreements. I would instruct RHO to get beer (or something else) for the whole table and otherwise do nothing. Regards, -- 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 Thu Aug 3 22:13:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73CCpQ28728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:12:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73CCgt28720 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:12:43 +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 13KJra-0007Ig-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:12:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:50:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian Nationals #1 References: <023201bffd93$28576820$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <023201bffd93$28576820$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >David Burn wrote: >>>> David Stevenson wrote: >>>>..... I have read some stuff about how the AC should know that >>>>L12C3 does not apply. How does anyone on BLML know this? >> >>Well, you and I "know", or think we know, that the varying of a score >>to do equity is not appropriate when the issue is solely one of >>whether an action that may have been taken as a result of UI is >>allowed to stand. We "know" that one of only two outcomes should >>be considered by the TD and/or the AC: >> >>(1) The action is deemed not chosen over another by reason of the >>UI, in which case the action is permitted and what followed from it >>at the table remains the result; or >> >>(2) The action is deemed chosen over another by reason of the UI, >>in which case it is cancelled. In this case, it is now possible for the >>TD and/or the AC to assign a result based on the probabilities of >>various outcomes that might have happened had the illegal action >>not occurred. > > >Ah, progress is being made. I wrote my previous posting not to >express what I "know", but to try to explain how the AC members, >who **never** see non-Australian Laws stuff (except perhaps the >CoP which has been publicised locally), might have interpreted >the words in the Laws. My aim is not to castigate anyone, but to >work out how to prevent well-meaning AC members in countries >outside the two major Zones coming up with their own >misinterpretation of this rather crucial aspect of the Laws. > >Now that L12C3 exists, I think that perhaps we could overcome >the problem if the middle of the last sentence of L12A2 were >changed to something like: "play to continue, standing ready to >cancel the illegal action and assign an adjusted score...". That >new wording would be likely to prevent the misinterpretation which >happened. Currently we have two different ways of assigning under L12C2. For offenders *only* we can include results obtained via the illegal action. Thus a L12C3 decision could be based in part on the illegal action for offenders only if you believe that L12C3 should be treated as an extension of L12C2. -- 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 Thu Aug 3 22:13:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73CCoX28727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:12:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73CCft28719 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:12:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KJrU-0007IH-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:12:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:54:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <001501bffcd9$c3c91020$e65908c3@dodona> >Grattan wrote: > >> The content of each message is no more than >> "I have an honour". The identification of which honour >> derives from a comparison of the message with the >> other evidence available, in fact from an examination >> by each of the defenders of the cards visible to him. > >Which sounds like a not too bad first attempt at describing encrypted >signals. Certainly a signal in the circumstances he discusses can be >described in a way that makes "sound" encrypted. To balance that >encrypted signals can be explained as eg "He has either more than half >the defensive points and a probable club honour OR fewer than half the >defensive points and a probable diamond honour." > >> The essential difference between this and an >> encrypted message is that encryption seeks to >> impede declarer's access to the information >> passed ('the content') in the message, and >> therefore the opportunity of relating it to such >> other information as he may have. > >And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of >"Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit preference, >d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. We use the information available >to determine which partner is likely to wish us to use and then do so." Well, that is certainly not Full Disclosure, and it is not legal. Are you really telling me that you and your partner do not know when it is likely to be one signal or another? Of course you do, and this answer is hiding that information from declarer. >Any encrypted signal is *more* likely to pass information to declarer than >the above approach (at least if declarer stops to think). Certainly, but only because your method is illegal. > It seems >obvious that any approach to bidding or play should have "maximising the >useful information shared while minimising the useful information >transmitted to opponents" as a desirable feature. [Although not if this >done by inadequate disclosure]. > >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because they are >unfair" is ridiculous. No! It is a perfectly good reason. -- 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 Thu Aug 3 22:15:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73CFVw28750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:32 +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 e73CFOt28742 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-189.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.189]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 609A836BB6; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:15:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000001bffd43$92238220$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:27:24 +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 Is it possible to tell me why L21B does not apply to this situation? I agree that it was not written with in mind the irregularity taking out a pass card in stead of a stop card, but that is not a very strong argument. The quality of our laws improve dramatically if they can be applied in cases not foreseen in detail when they were written. Is it your disgust for the laws in general that you don't accept this small victory? is it possible to deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass card when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? To David: we have a better argument for not allowing the pass to be removed by a preempt in your example. In Lille or Bermuda or both we decided that a deliberate change of a call is not allowed when it is based on information coming from the other players. Grattan will have the right sentence somewhere. Another small victory so. ton -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Cc: Max Bavin Date: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A >Herman wrote: > >> "Kooijman, A." wrote: >> > >> > > > >> > > > What infraction? Which Law has been broken when a player >removes a >> > > > pass card from his bidding box? >> > >> > If a law is broken, most probably law 30. >> > To restrict the problem to the case where somebody takes out a >pass card >> > where he wants to produce the stop card the word 'infraction' >might not be >> > adequate, but an irregularity it is. >> > If LHO has made a call before we apply 25A law 21B tells us what >to do. I >> > hope we all agree that LHO has based his call on misinformation >then. And >> > law 16 tells us what to do with the extraneous information. >> > >> >> Sorry Ton, not agreed. This is not Misinformation. > >Quite right. Of course it isn't. Sundry people have come up with the >idea that to bid 1H is to inform the opponents that 1H is what you are >bidding, in order to justify the use of L21B. But anyone at the bridge >table who said "I wish to inform you that I am bidding one heart" >instead of saying "One Heart" would be drummed out of the club. >Misinformation is a term that is specifically used in the context of >bridge for errors in explanations given to opponents, in response to >questions or by means of alerts (and non-alerts). It is casuistry to >argue that L21B applies to this case just because the people who made >the Laws forgot to create something that actually does apply. > >> Don't wriggle out of it like that. > >The trouble is that there is no other way out of it. If player A makes >a call, then his LHO makes a call, then player A wishes to change his >call under L25A, there is nothing in the Laws to deal with the >situation (in respect of the status of LHO's original call). >Therefore, L21B is pressed into a service for which it was never >intended, with the inevitable consequences. > >> I believe the Laws don't deal with this. > >That is correct. They do not. However, the lawmakers deal with this by >agreeing among themselves (without telling anyone) that L21B will be >used, thus adding to the extent to which players become hopelessly >confused. > >> I suggest the WBFLC decide in Maastricht that L21 is also to >> be applied to a change of call by means of L25A. >> >> Then we can go on until 2005 like that. > >I suggest the WBFLC decide in Maastricht that a call once made may not >be changed. Then we can go on till 3005 with a game in which players >know the rules. At least, we could, were it not for the laws on >revokes, claims, psyches... > >It occurs to me that the following is at present permitted under the >Laws: I have a marginal pre-empt, but decide to pass. I see LHO reach >into his box to open the bidding, perhaps with a strong club. Now, of >course, I wish I had opened. What do I do? I immediately apologise for >having pulled out the pass card instead of the stop card, and open my >pre-empt after all. > >To save people some time, I will point out here that the official >response to this anomaly is as follows: the Laws are not designed to >stop people cheating if they are determined to do so. If I want to do >this I can go ahead, but the incident will be noted and repetition of >it will lead to my being cursed by bell, book and candle. This is >eyewash, but it's a popular and comforting fiction. > >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 Aug 3 22:15:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73CFbT28752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73CFRt28747 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-189.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.189]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F05D36B7B; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:15:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000201bffd43$952613c0$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" , "David Burn" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - applicability of L21B Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 20:41:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > I believe the Laws don't deal with this. >> >> That is correct. They do not. However, the lawmakers deal with this by >> agreeing among themselves (without telling anyone) that L21B will be >> used, thus adding to the extent to which players become hopelessly >> confused. Poor players, how hopelessly confused they get. The question is whether we deal with a fresh interpretation to be communicated here. It seems an obvious interpretation to me. We would get a complicated situation if every 'not exactly the same infraction as before' needs a fresh interpretation from 'the 17'. But if we wish we can ask them of course. ton >> >+=+ Hey, stop right there! I am not aware >that 'the lawmakers' have done anything >about the problem. I am not aware that >'the lawmakers' have even taken stock >to establish whether there is a problem. >I am one of seventeen people who would >be involved before any change or fresh >interpretation of the law was agreed by >'the lawmakers'. I am in fact the one who >has the responsibility for communicating >matters to them. I have no knowledge of >any consultation on the subject at all. >We have agreed nothing between >ourselves so there is nothing to tell. > Every one of us probably has a >personal opinion on it. But if it happens >it is in the hands of the Directors and the >appeals committees for the time being. >With such local guidance as they may >receive. ~ 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 Fri Aug 4 01:46:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73FjOH28881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:45:24 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73FjFt28873 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:45:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-204.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.204]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14139 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:45:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39892B23.194A9861@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:19:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <200008021440.KAA02735@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > No, I believe the 4D showed a willingness to raise 3He to > > 4. The double showed hearts, but not a willingness to raise > > three to four. > > Certainly 4D showed willingness to play at the four level, but I > would hardly expect that to require an alert. _Given that heart > support has already been shown_, of course 4D shows willingness > to hear a conversion to 4H, but that doesn't come from the 4D > bid itself. > That has been dealt with. > > Please also knwo that alerting in Europe is not as "good" as > > it hopefully is in the ACBL. Certainly in big international > > things, alerting is a somewhat random process. The alert of > > a take-out double is not needed, and probably opponents > > thought something like "stupid Belgians, alerting a take-out > > double". > > This, on the other hand, may make a difference. I disclaim > familiarity with alerting rules and practices in Belgium or > France. Around here (Boston area), it would be _bizarre_ to > fail to ask about an alerted double of an opening bid. The > double could mean _anything_, and normal takeout would be the > last thing one would expect. > Well, that would be different over here. > I am still not inclined to protect NS from their own failure > to ask the meaning of the alerted double, but my parochial > experience could easily be at fault. > OK, protect NS or not, that is not really the proble, is it ? As you say yourself : > The real question is still whether the alert regulations require the 4D > bid to be alerted, and it is still not obvious to me why they should. > The 4D bid doesn't carry any unexpected meaning that I can see. But > again my vision may be limited by lack of experience. The real question that this poses is this : can the alert procedure be any different depending on whether or not some previous bid has been explained or not ? For instance : When I open 2Cl, this contains a weak 2 in diamonds. Partner will usually reply 2Di, and if opponents are aware of the meaning of 2Cl, the meaning of 2Di is self-evident. So an alert cannot be needed, and I would not expect to be ruled against if an alert were forgotten, when 2Cl has been explained. But that does not, IMO, alter the fact that 2Di must be alerted. I feel that any previous explanation or absence thereof does not affect the alertability of 4Di. Having said that, I feel that 4Di needs to be alerted both with and without an explanation of the double. But I must stress that I am confident on the principle (same alert regardless) and less confident about the application (should 4 Di be alerted regardless). It may well be that I have bidding theory backwards and that 1Sp X 2Sp 3He X 4Di always shows heart support. To me however, it does not. And an alert procedure is designed to help the weaker players as well. I would like an alert. -- 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 Aug 4 01:46:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73FjQ428882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:45:26 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73FjHt28874 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:45:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-204.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.204]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14147 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:45:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39892DDD.18E0580D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:31:25 +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] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <3987D769.2E441600@village.uunet.be> <003d01bffcee$7a2f4f00$5a5a063e@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > The problem just reduces to this : do we want the game to be > > made even more difficult ? > > > > Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are > > "new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them and > > this is an advantage that balances the disadvantage of > > creating your own problems. > > Quite so. When the takeout double was first conceived, the opposition > to it from established players was vociferous. No doubt, had there > been such a thing as a WBF Systems Policy in those days, none of us > would know what to do with a three-suited hand short in RHO's > one-level opening. Fortunately, that was then and this is now. > A quite genuine concern. > > Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all > > was rosy. > > When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. > > And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their > > defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone > > still uses HUMs. > > >From my position in the front row of the stalls, the picture is > somewhat different. None of the pairs who used to play HUMs at > international level have stopped playing them because the opponents > now know what to do against them. They have stopped playing them > because the devices employed by officialdom to prevent their use have > placed them and their teams at so great a disadvantage that any > systemic benefit would not outweigh the cost. > There may be a lot of truth in what you say. But also there is that word "systemic benefit". Do proponents of HUMs claim systemic benefits? Can you really be certain that the decline in the playing of HUMs is only due to the loss of seating rights and not also in some degree to the fact that opponents are more able to deal with them than was the case in (Seattle, was it - for the Olympiad ?) ? There are no problems with using HUMs in the Belgian first division. The system has to be sent in advance, obviously, and the defence can be used at the table. There is also loss of seating rights. And still, there has been no HUM filed in the last four years, despite the fact that there had been previously (one pair found playing against HUMs in Killarney so pleasant that they decided to also try it). > > The same is true for encryption. Yes, it can be fun to try > > to decrypt opponent's signals, but I believe the game is > > difficult enough as it is. > > Splendid. Theoretical advances in the game of bridge are now forbidden > because Herman de Wael can't keep up with them. Yes, that seems to be the trend. There can be advantages to this as well, can't there ? Lest I should be > accused of an unwarranted personal attack, I do not direct these > remarks specifically at HdW. I did not for one moment that you were. Let me draw your attention to one of the > most ludicrous bridge articles ever written, by Alan Truscott in the > daily bulletin at the most recent Bermuda Bowl. There, he said that > (in effect) players should not be allowed to play complicated methods > because other players would be placed at a disadvantage by having to > understand what those methods were and to adapt their own systems > accordingly. By what right do we, the current generation of bridge > players, seek to ensure that there shall be nothing for future > generations of bridge players to do? > I preferred the response in the next bulletin. By one DB I believe. > > So maybe the methods should not be banned but considered > > brown or yellow? > > There's times when you'll think that you mightn't, > There's times when you'll know that you might, > But the things you will learn from the Yellow and Brown, > They'll help you a lot with the White. > Rudyard Kipling > -- 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 Aug 4 02:05:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73G5eR28907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:05:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73G5Xt28903 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:05:34 +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 IAA25577 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:56:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:06:48 -0400 Message-ID: <001101bffd64$d3f3f240$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: <39892DDD.18E0580D@village.uunet.be> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > There may be a lot of truth in what you say. But also there > is that word "systemic benefit". Do proponents of HUMs > claim systemic benefits? Yes, they do. There is ample literature describing the advantages of direcly linking bidding space to hand frequency. > Can you really be certain that the > decline in the playing of HUMs is only due to the loss of > seating rights and not also in some degree to the fact that > opponents are more able to deal with them than was the case > in (Seattle, was it - for the Olympiad ?) ? Seating rights are not the problem. The problems is the strict limitations on the number of events where one can actually use these methods. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOYmYlyGkJ7YU62vZEQJ6EwCeNXS7tlWMwsZR6hslVgmIZclLpxUAoOdw 77aKfn2XBLrQ3a3/ZA6If79U =U69P -----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 Aug 4 03:18:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73HHmn28953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 03:17:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f161.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73HHht28949 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 03:17:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:17:35 -0700 Received: from 172.128.157.32 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.157.32] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:17:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2000 17:17:35.0666 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7824120:01BFFD6E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > >And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of > >"Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit preference, > >d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. We use the information available > >to determine which partner is likely to wish us to use and then do so." > > Well, that is certainly not Full Disclosure, and it is not legal. Is the following better? "It's attitude unless we already know that the suit should not be continued such as when the board shows out with short trump or when partner has supported my suit but denies a second trick in it, e.g. the lead of my ace drops his jack. Then it's count, unless I couldn't care such as when a concealed hand has shown out or it's our suit and I know that we already have the balance. Failing those two, it's suit preference, unless that's illogical e.g. showing a preference for hearts when the AKQJ are on board and partner's out of trump. When all of the above fail, I assume that the signal is either meaningless or intended for declarer's benefit." > Are you really telling me that you and your partner do not know when >it is likely to be one signal or another? Of course you do, and this >answer is hiding that information from declarer. I sometimes know the difference only because of the cards in my hand. I don't think that declarer is entitled to explanation of the signal if that must reveal some extra information about my hand. e.g. Partner sitting after the AC discards the 8C on a trump lead. I don't have to tell declarer that it's likely preference (what I'll assume if the KC is in my hand) or attitude (what I'll assume if the KQC are not in my hand). > >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because they are > >unfair" is ridiculous. > > No! It is a perfectly good reason. I disagree that encrypted signals are by any means unfair. -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 Aug 4 03:28:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73HSVE28969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 03:28:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com [139.134.5.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e73HSRt28965 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 03:28:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya640118 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 03:29:40 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-37.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.37]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Cheesy-MailRouter V2.9 3/1831653); 04 Aug 2000 03:29:39 Message-ID: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Why no HUMs? Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:25:34 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote in the parent thread called Encrypted Siganlling: Brown Sticker Conventions: >..... Do proponents of HUMs claim systemic benefits? Yes. And IMO they are 100.000% correct. Note that I am not a proponent of HUMs but have played against them an awful lot. >Can you really be certain that the decline in the playing >of HUMs is only due to the loss of seating rights and not >also in some degree to the fact that opponents are more >able to deal with them than was the case in (Seattle, was >it - for the Olympiad ?) ? Having been a playing member of the Australian team whose HUM caused the storm which erupted at the 1984 Olympiad in Seattle, I have a right to an informed opinion here. Seating rights are a minor issue. The big issue is that HUM pairs can no longer play their HUM often enough to practise it. Richard Willey has already corrected Herman's inaccuracies in two posts to the parent thread. A most fascinating and IMO costfree experiment should IMO be conducted by the WBF. They should declare soon that the 2003 World Junior Teams Championship will permit HUMs (with seating loss). This gives NBOs adequate warning so that their junior players can decide whether to play HUMs. I am pretty sure that Australia is one country that would consequently reintroduce permission to play HUMs in our National Junior teams events. In the unlikely event that no HUMs then emerged at the 2003 WJC, Herman would have a point. Note that it is too late to do this in 2001. 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 Fri Aug 4 06:40:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73Ke1v29076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 06:40:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73Kdtt29072 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 06:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05715; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:36:30 -0700 Message-Id: <200008032036.NAA05715@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:17:35 PDT." Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:36:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > >From: David Stevenson [Tim West-Meads:] > > >And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of > > >"Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit preference, > > >d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. Tim forgot "f) the only card we think we can afford to let go of." > > >We use the information available > > >to determine which partner is likely to wish us to use and then do so." > > > > Well, that is certainly not Full Disclosure, and it is not legal. > > Is the following better? "It's attitude unless we already know that the > suit should not be continued such as when the board shows out with short > trump or when partner has supported my suit but denies a second trick in it, > e.g. the lead of my ace drops his jack. Then it's count, unless I couldn't > care such as when a concealed hand has shown out or it's our suit and I know > that we already have the balance. Failing those two, it's suit preference, > unless that's illogical e.g. showing a preference for hearts when the AKQJ > are on board and partner's out of trump. When all of the above fail, I > assume that the signal is either meaningless or intended for declarer's > benefit." > > > Are you really telling me that you and your partner do not know when > >it is likely to be one signal or another? Of course you do, and this > >answer is hiding that information from declarer. > > I sometimes know the difference only because of the cards in my hand. > I don't think that declarer is entitled to explanation of the signal if that > must reveal some extra information about my hand. e.g. Partner sitting > after the AC discards the 8C on a trump lead. I don't have to tell declarer > that it's likely preference (what I'll assume if the KC is in my hand) or > attitude (what I'll assume if the KQC are not in my hand). I think David is correct, but in a very limited way. Tim's explanation wouldn't adequately reflect the way my partnerships defend, nor the way most do. We have some general rules, i.e. when our side leads to a trick, the "default" is to signal attitude, and when declarer leads, the "default" signal is count. However, those rules are very general, and they get broken a lot when the situation calls for it. We leave it up to each partner to judge what the situation calls for. For example, if my opening lead to a trump contract is dummy's singleton, is partner's signal attitude or suit preference? Well, that's not clear. Sometimes it's attitude, since partner could want a continuation if forcing dummy would promote a trump trick, or if partner can tell that a shift would be worse. On a few hands, a count signal may even be appropriate. Partner not only has to decide what he thinks would be a more useful signal, he also has to decide whether he thinks I would be on the same wavelength as him; and likewise I have to try to read partner's mind to determine what he's likely to think the appropriate signal is. Sometimes this can be figured out just from the auction and the dummy; usually it requires looking at my hand. But to me, this is all part of the logic and art of defense---trying to figure out what's going on. Defense inherently has a lot more to do with logic, and a lot less to do with "system" and "agreements", than the auction does. I hope David doesn't intend to go much further than the kinds of things I referred to---i.e. when it comes to the question of whether a signal is attitude, count, suit preference, or something else, you have to disclose any general principles you've agreed on, but really nothing else. While the Laws say you have to disclose implicit agreements formed from partnership experience, it's not clear at all how to apply this to signalling. Say the opponents bid 1S-2S-4S, and I lead the ace of diamonds and dummy shows up with KQ2 J7632 3 8752. Partner's signal turns out to be attitude (he had Jxxx of trumps and wanted to force dummy to ruff). How does this affect our ability to form an implicit agreement? I can't even say for sure that next time I hear the exact same auction and make the exact same lead and see the exact same dummy, that I know what partner's signal is going to mean. Partner will probably have a totally different hand (which I can deduce from looking at my totally different hand) and may be thinking in a different direction. And since even the auction and dummy aren't enough to know what partner's signal means, I don't see how it's possible to form an implicit agreement that will apply when dummy is different---even if it's only a little different, since a seemingly small change in dummy could have a major effect on what the defenders think is the best strategy. So since the logic of every hand is different, I don't see how it makes any sense to try to figure out what one's implicit signalling agreements are. -- 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 Aug 4 07:17:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73LH6c29102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 07:17:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73LH0t29098 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 07:17:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e73LBuk29530 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:11:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200008032111.e73LBuk29530@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:11:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200008032036.NAA05715@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Aug 03, 2000 01:36:30 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: > > But to me, this is all part of the logic and art of defense---trying > to figure out what's going on. Defense inherently has a lot more to > do with logic, and a lot less to do with "system" and "agreements", > than the auction does. > > I hope David doesn't intend to go much further than the kinds of > things I referred to---i.e. when it comes to the question of whether a > signal is attitude, count, suit preference, or something else, you > have to disclose any general principles you've agreed on, but really > nothing else. While the Laws say you have to disclose implicit > agreements formed from partnership experience, it's not clear at all > how to apply this to signalling. We turn again to Albuquerque. As a teaser (and to help explain the 1NT overcall ruling that we recently discussed here), consider this note from Eric Kokish. After one of the early boards in the set, the Swedes questioned Balicki/Zmudzinski about their signals. It turned out that their convention card was innacurate in that area and they readily supplied hand-written declarations of their (real) agreements. In the next set the Swedish pair in question were up against Lasocki/Gawrys in a touch and got 4NT. Hand and auction doesn't really matter. Quoting now from Kokish's account. [...] the diamond 5 went to the jack and queen and Auby tried two high spades, Lasocki following four-deuce. Auby asked Gawrys about this and was told that it was either count, suit preference, or a Smith Signal, whichever he thought would be most useful. Gawrys summed up by stating that each case would have to be deduced from bridge logic and that was as far as he would go. Auby summoned first the Tournament Director and then the Chief Tournament Director (since there are time considerations at this level, who is the time "charged" to? This whole procedure can't have been quick.), and eventually Gawrys was told that he could not ask his opponents to use their own bridge logic. -- 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 Aug 4 08:15:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73MFYX29143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:15:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73MFNt29131 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:15:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KTGi-000ESD-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:57:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> >And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of >> >"Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit preference, >> >d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. We use the information available >> >to determine which partner is likely to wish us to use and then do so." >> >> Well, that is certainly not Full Disclosure, and it is not legal. > > Is the following better? "It's attitude unless we already know that the >suit should not be continued such as when the board shows out with short >trump or when partner has supported my suit but denies a second trick in it, >e.g. the lead of my ace drops his jack. Then it's count, unless I couldn't >care such as when a concealed hand has shown out or it's our suit and I know >that we already have the balance. Failing those two, it's suit preference, >unless that's illogical e.g. showing a preference for hearts when the AKQJ >are on board and partner's out of trump. When all of the above fail, I >assume that the signal is either meaningless or intended for declarer's >benefit." Basically, if we are to play a game without it being decided by the officials the whole time, we want people to act as reasonably as possible. I agree that a complete detailed discussion is probably not helpful either, so it is a question of getting the level right. >> Are you really telling me that you and your partner do not know when >>it is likely to be one signal or another? Of course you do, and this >>answer is hiding that information from declarer. > > I sometimes know the difference only because of the cards in my hand. >I don't think that declarer is entitled to explanation of the signal if that >must reveal some extra information about my hand. e.g. Partner sitting >after the AC discards the 8C on a trump lead. I don't have to tell declarer >that it's likely preference (what I'll assume if the KC is in my hand) or >attitude (what I'll assume if the KQC are not in my hand). No, if it is because of your hand, the oppos do not get that info - but if there are only two possibilities, for example, in a specific situation, naming both is fair [even though you know which one because of your hand], naming all six you play in any situation is not fair. Really, I only ask that people act fairly and reasonably. many do not through ignorance: for them we need education. Many do not because they seem to think that they should gain by every method possible: for them we need a big stick. But if people try their best I ask little more. >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because they are >> >unfair" is ridiculous. >> >> No! It is a perfectly good reason. > > I disagree that encrypted signals are by any means unfair. Sorry, you are not disagreeing. I do not say whether they are unfair or not. But it is a good reason if they are unfair. -- 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 Aug 4 08:15:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73MFXi29141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:15:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73MFLt29129 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KTGi-000ESE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:00:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <200008032036.NAA05715@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200008032036.NAA05715@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 Adam Beneschan wrote: >I hope David doesn't intend to go much further than the kinds of >things I referred to---i.e. when it comes to the question of whether a >signal is attitude, count, suit preference, or something else, you >have to disclose any general principles you've agreed on, but really >nothing else. While the Laws say you have to disclose implicit >agreements formed from partnership experience, it's not clear at all >how to apply this to signalling. Say the opponents bid 1S-2S-4S, and >I lead the ace of diamonds and dummy shows up with KQ2 J7632 3 8752. >Partner's signal turns out to be attitude (he had Jxxx of trumps and >wanted to force dummy to ruff). How does this affect our ability to >form an implicit agreement? I can't even say for sure that next time >I hear the exact same auction and make the exact same lead and see the >exact same dummy, that I know what partner's signal is going to mean. OK, you can't. But I know a lot of people who do *always* give suit preference in this situation. If you ask them their signalling they will say "Count". Do you think that is fair? Your approach to defending is fine, but it is not universal. -- 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 Aug 4 08:15:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73MFXC29142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:15:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73MFLt29130 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:15:22 +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 13KTGi-000Pvs-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:15:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:08:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? References: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Having been a playing member of the Australian team whose >HUM caused the storm which erupted at the 1984 Olympiad in >Seattle, I have a right to an informed opinion here. Seating rights >are a minor issue. The big issue is that HUM pairs can no longer >play their HUM often enough to practise it. Richard Willey has >already corrected Herman's inaccuracies in two posts to the >parent thread. In England there used to be a competition that had large Multiple Teams heats, then four knockout rounds, then an eight team final. Various strange things including HUMs were allowed in the knockout rounds. When they killed the allowance for HUMs the argument was that it would upset everyone to be continually playing against HUMs. This argument always annoyed me, because the number of pairs taking advantage of this rule was negligible. On average a pair would expect to meet a HUM pair in this event about once every thirty years or so. What also annoyed me was that no-one asked one particular Yorkshire married couple. They had the distinction of being the *only* pair that played against HUMs the last year they were allowed: myself and Steve Whittleton were playing a system called DAW Pass. They loved it. They came to the match armed with bits of paper, they had been discussing it as a team, they were looking forward to it, and they said it was great fun. No-one ever asked them, of course. It was sad when they killed it. -- 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 Aug 4 08:49:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73Mn8U29182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:49:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73Mn2t29177 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:49:03 +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 <20000803224857.HNFT24297.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:48:57 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:49:29 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <000901bffce4$23d3f660$5a5a063e@D457300> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If a golfer signs for a 74 > when he has taken a 73, that golfer will be disqualified instead of > winning the tournament, despite the fact that he didn't do it on > purpose (and wouldn't have done it if he had known what he was doing). Well... not exactly - golfers don't determine their actual score, just the result on each hole - so they cannot lose or be DQ'd for a math error (unlike bridge - Geneva comes to mind) And... there is no penalty for recording a score worse than the one actually made - you get to keep it - but if you mistakenly sign for a score LOWER (better) than the one actually achieved, you are out... > Racehorse owners and golfers have no problem at all with the Laws of > their sport - they accept, as does every other sportsman, that the > Laws are designed so that there is no possibility of the guilty > escaping unscathed, even if this means that the innocent but foolish > are harshly treated. > Not only that - in golf you are responsible for calling any rules infractions on yourself and if you make a mistake and do not rectify your rules infraction correctly, you are DQ'd. There are many legendary stories of pros playing for big bucks making "novice" rules infraction errors. Wouldn't it be interesting if bridge players were routinely DQ'd for "flagrant fouls"? Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 08:56:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73MujY29196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:56:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73Mudt29192 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA05698 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:56:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: > >And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of > >"Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit > >preference, d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. We use the > >information available >to determine which partner is likely to wish > >us to use and then do so." > Well, that is certainly not Full Disclosure, and it is not legal. Many people use different signals in different situations, I have yet to see them itemised on a CC (I doubt it would be possible without A3 sized CCs). Under what Law/Regulation are these methods banned? > Are you really telling me that you and your partner do not know > when it is likely to be one signal or another? Of course you do, > and this answer is hiding that information from declarer. In many situations one *can* tell from the auction/dummy what partner is likely to be signalling and append an "In this situation it..." Much of the time that information is based on your own holding and not in any way "disclosable". At other times one can narrow the field by "If he thinks.." type explanations. In other situations one may even have partnership experience to say "In this situation it is probably.." I would consider the original explanation as pretty reasonable for a CC. As a summary of method for a mailing list it is surely more than adequate. In fact a) probably happens more than b) and b) more than c), I can't begin to guess their frequency relative to d) and e). > >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because they > >are unfair" is ridiculous. > > No! It is a perfectly good reason. Then perhaps you should ban squeezes for the same reason. There is nothing inherent in encryption that contravenes the spirit of the game. 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 Fri Aug 4 09:04:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73N4l429212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:04:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e73N4gt29208 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:04:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA20742; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:04:36 +1000 Received: from dnshost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.141) by falgate via smap (V2.1) id xma020703; Fri, 4 Aug 00 09:04:32 +1000 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dnshost.fujitsu.com.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73N4W523244 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:04:32 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.sercit.fujitsu.com.au ([137.172.15.185]) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA04761 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:53:11 +1000 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000804083616.00ae7880@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:58:19 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? In-Reply-To: References: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, I have been reading this thread with interest. I used to believe it should be anything goes anytime - but I was younger then ;-) Now, I think it should be anything goes at certain levels. I think that the concept of having limits depending upon the event is clearly right. Why the top level is not, anything goes within the laws of bridge is *completely* incomprehensible. I remember playing in the World Juniors in 1989 and 1991 and the complete disbelief among the players that HUMs were banned - who exactly was being protected? The encryption/HUM debate has convinced me that there is some, in my mind, completely arbitrary decision by those in power, that they are "bad for bridge". Well, maybe for a Saturday afternoon duplicate...even perhaps any pairs event. [But if all Level 1 (top level) events allowed any systems then players would soon have defences to most anything that comes up. They wouldn't be able to say "but it is only for two boards" - in Australia when HUMs were fairly common every pair I knew had a defence to HUMs. In Oz/NZ *everyone* above beginner level can defend against those evil unanchored two bids that have to be banned from all but the Q/F and beyond of the Olympiad. ] At the NSWBA (my state club) we have a policy that on our main (in theory strong) club night all systems are allowed for teams matches - but HUMs have to be filed in advance. There are a few who take advantage of this but it is not the top echelon because these systems aren't allowed internationally anyway and so there isn't any point. One other neat idea that was around a few years back in Australia was the concept of "Protected Pairs". Any pair with a player with less than X masterpoints (or perhaps it was average of the pair, I can't recall exactly) was allowed to claim "Protected Pair" status and opponents weren't allowed to play a HUM against them. Of course, many of the protected pairs didn't care what their opponents played and everyone got on with the game. Until the top level of the game allows innovation then I don't believe things will ever improve. Cheers, Peter PS: I was playing in New Zealand against a pair of LOL's. We sit down and the bidding goes 1H on my left, alert on my right, "What is that?" asks partner "A 1S opening, 11-15 HCP"... it was considered so normal that they didn't even have a system card! PPS: Does anyone remember "Classic Bridge"? -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9776-4530(T) +61-2-9776-4531(F) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 09:15:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73NFl229250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:15:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e73NFht29246 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:15:43 +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 JAA24157 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:15:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000804091524.01293ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:15:25 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [majordomo getting overzealous again, bouncing things :-(...-Markus] >From: "David Burn" Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:22:47 +0100 DWS wrote: > Suppose we assume that it is possible to make such a change - in >which > case David and I think it desirable - is it fair to suddenly make a > determination based on this new approach? Is it right for the penalty > for putting a curtain back wrongly to suddenly increase by so much > without warning? The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair advantage thereby. "But I didn't do it on purpose!" No, of course you didn't. You "just happened" to interchange your opponents' curtain cards - which you had no business to touch at all - after they had left the table, because you were "curious about the hand". Personally, if I go three down in a no-play slam, I do not really care what my opponents had. But if I were that curious about it, I might consider watching the play, instead of waiting to satisfy my curiosity until there was no one around who might prevent its "unfortunate" consequences. 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 Fri Aug 4 09:59:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e73NxW629269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:59:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e73NxPt29265 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:59:26 +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 13KUtP-000Pbv-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 00:59:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 00:57:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Multi References: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If you go to http://blakjak.com/wbf_cnbk.htm you will find a description of the Multi taken from the Conventions Booklet: downloadable copies in Word and text of the whole booklet: comments by Grattan. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 4 11:04:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7414NF29325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7414Ct29320 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:04:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KVtx-0004r6-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:03:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1$PMOEAqLhi5Ew5g@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:48:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <3.0.32.20000804091524.01293ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000804091524.01293ec0@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 by way of Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >[majordomo getting overzealous again, bouncing things :-(...-Markus] > >>From: "David Burn" >Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:22:47 +0100 > >DWS wrote: > >> Suppose we assume that it is possible to make such a change - in >>which >> case David and I think it desirable - is it fair to suddenly make a >> determination based on this new approach? Is it right for the >penalty >> for putting a curtain back wrongly to suddenly increase by so much >> without warning? > >The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The >penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has >just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair >advantage thereby. "But I didn't do it on purpose!" No, of course you >didn't. You "just happened" to interchange your opponents' curtain >cards - which you had no business to touch at all - after they had >left the table, because you were "curious about the hand". Personally, >if I go three down in a no-play slam, I do not really care what my >opponents had. But if I were that curious about it, I might consider >watching the play, instead of waiting to satisfy my curiosity until >there was no one around who might prevent its "unfortunate" >consequences. True. However, whether she should or not, it may have affected my judgement that the player concerned is always looking at oppos' curtain cards for whatever reason. -- 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 Aug 4 11:04:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7414St29328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:04:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74149t29319 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KVtu-0004qw-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:03:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:49:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> >And so does the perfectly sensible (and legal) method. Of >> >"Signals/discards will be one of: a)count, b)attitude, c)suit >> >preference, d)meaningless, e)intended for declarer. We use the >> >information available >to determine which partner is likely to wish >> >us to use and then do so." > >> Well, that is certainly not Full Disclosure, and it is not legal. > >Many people use different signals in different situations, I have yet >to see them itemised on a CC (I doubt it would be possible without A3 >sized CCs). Under what Law/Regulation are these methods banned? I don't know. Who said they were banned? But hiding your methods from your oppos is still not legal. >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because they >> >are unfair" is ridiculous. >> >> No! It is a perfectly good reason. > >Then perhaps you should ban squeezes for the same reason. There is >nothing inherent in encryption that contravenes the spirit of the >game. Well, I didn't say there was, so perhaps you could go and argue with someone who thinks so. Of course, producing a non-parallel advances your argument a lot, wouldn't you say? -- 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 Aug 4 11:04:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74148N29318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:04:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74140t29314 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:04:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KVtu-0004qx-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:03:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 01:49:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <46nrqrA5DYh5EwxV@probst.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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>In article <00+JIRA6kNh5EwA4@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >>> writes >> >>>> 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. >> >> The first pair of results were both when Manchester was N/S. >> >> In effect the results at the Red tables were Manchester +420/-420. >> >> At the Yellow tables were Manchester -150/unable to play. >> >ok, so I'd rule result stands for the red tables, and score +3/-3 imps >for the misboard at the yellow tables. The player who misboarded was not >"trying" to recover from the slam swing and so 'could not have known'. I >still don't fine because of West's failure to spot East's curtain card >in the West slot. What is the EBU position on this one btw? I ruled that Manchester lost a slam swing. In my view the player who misboarded could have known it would work to her advantage. There was no appeal. The white book has a reference to this 12.26 citing L12A1, but since it was published we have a new Law book, and I reckon this is L72B1. -- 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 Aug 4 11:47:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e741l6a29364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:47:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e741hpt29360 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:43:56 +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 13KWW2-000LZ7-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:43:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 02:39:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <3.0.32.20000804091524.01293ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20000804091524.01293ec0@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 In article <3.0.32.20000804091524.01293ec0@acsys.anu.edu.au>, by way of Markus Buchhorn writes > >[majordomo getting overzealous again, bouncing things :-(...-Markus] > >>From: "David Burn" >Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup >Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:22:47 +0100 > >DWS wrote: > >> Suppose we assume that it is possible to make such a change - in >>which >> case David and I think it desirable - is it fair to suddenly make a >> determination based on this new approach? Is it right for the >penalty >> for putting a curtain back wrongly to suddenly increase by so much >> without warning? Was the player who got to the slam the one who fouled the board? My reading of the original text was that this was not the case. If it were the case I'd award the imps for the slam swing plus a PP. Otherwise I stick to +3/-3 > >The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The >penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has >just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair >advantage thereby. "But I didn't do it on purpose!" No, of course you >didn't. You "just happened" to interchange your opponents' curtain >cards - which you had no business to touch at all - after they had >left the table, because you were "curious about the hand". Personally, >if I go three down in a no-play slam, I do not really care what my >opponents had. But if I were that curious about it, I might consider >watching the play, instead of waiting to satisfy my curiosity until >there was no one around who might prevent its "unfortunate" >consequences. > >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/ -- 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 Fri Aug 4 12:25:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e742OSx29387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e742OOt29383 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:24:24 +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 e742OMK22668 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:24:23 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:24:21 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: [BLML] False Claim in Canberra In-Reply-To: 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, 3 Aug 2000, Martin Sinot wrote: > Mark Abraham wrote: > > >In a club game on Monday night, I was playing an apparently hopeless 3NT > >and had this spade suit to play: > > > >KQT4 > >A82 > > > >I cashed the king and crossed to the ace. Both my opponents echoed and I > >continued to play in tempo to the queen of spades, dropping SJ63 with RHO. > > > >RHO now whinged that I hadn't even asked what their count convention was. > > > >I replied that I hadn't cared what count they played, and continued saying > >"If I was a woman, I could claim that it was woman's intuition..." > > > >Quick as a flash, RHO summoned the Director and advised him that declarer > >had just made a false claim and that he was entitled to a score adjustment. > > > >Mark Abraham > > RHO was joking, right? I don't see a claim at all, let alone a false one. > If it was your statement about woman's intuition, then it is > (mathematically) > true. Obviously, you could claim that it was woman's intuition if you were > a woman. But, since you are not a woman, the statement is true. RHO had evidence from my play (blindly dropping 3-3) which was quite consistent with some guidance from some non-bridge source. Since a woman's intuition was a possible legal source of such guidance, RHO could support his allegation that I was, in fact, a woman. I could also have been a mind-reader, but in both cases he is entitled to a score adjustment. > And if RHO was not joking, I can only say that it is not forbidden NOT > to ask about agreements. I would instruct RHO to get beer (or something > else) for the whole table and otherwise do nothing. Sadly, RHO *was* joking. The good news was that afte that I made the hopeless 3NT for a screaming top. 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 Fri Aug 4 12:54:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e742rkX29411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:53:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e742rft29407 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:53:42 +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 MAA14475 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:50:15 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:50:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:50:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 04/08/2000 12:48:00 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: "We keep on assuming that the likelihood of a malicious action is very remote. That is why the game of bridge is in its present state with regard to the Laws. But the likelihood of a malicious action is not very remote at all, and the Laws of the game should be so constituted that anything that could be construed as malicious is in fact so construed." The pre-1975 Laws made it difficult to establish UI without accusing the infracting player of cheating. As a result, before 1975 UI was rampant, since no AC wanted to face a libel suit. Edgar Kaplan was instrumental in introducing the new *no-fault* concept of UI, treating it as a technical matter where the recipient of UI merely had restricted options. As a result, Bridge has much less of what Kaplan called *Black Magic* in auctions today. L72B1, which David Stevenson used to resolve the President's Cup situation, has a similar advantage of being no-fault. The TD is not required to determine whether cheating has occurred, only whether *an offender could have known ... damage the non-offending side*. A simple technical ruling keeps the game honest, without the major drama that a draconic disqualification of a team would incur. 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 Aug 4 14:17:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e744GGu29453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:16:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e744Fst29449 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:16:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l38.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.104]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAB12529 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 00:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000804001547.014a2480@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:15:47 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <00d901bffc07$fbbcfaa0$6a5408c3@dodona> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:28 PM 8/1/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+I make no comment on what should >be considered fair or desirable. What I >have gathered to be an argument for >the prohibition is that part of the >essential nature of the game is for >declarer to have equal access with >defenders to the content of messages >they exchange. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But of course this is true for encrypted signalling as well, so long as the true nature of the method is fully disclosed. Declarer has full access to the _content_ of the message, but lacks (in some instances anyway) access to its intended meaning. What is the source of this lack of understanding? The simple and unavoidable fact that he is looking at different cards than the opponents. And this key difference provides "inequities" in information in all phases of the play. Any card played by any player may be read differently by the other players in the game, based in part on their own cards. Unfair? I don't see how. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 15:18:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e745I4G29489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:18:04 +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 e745Hwt29485 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id GAA11906 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 06:17:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 06:17 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: > >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because > > they are > >> >unfair" is ridiculous. > >> > >> No! It is a perfectly good reason. > > > > I disagree that encrypted signals are by any means unfair. > > Sorry, you are not disagreeing. I do not say whether they are > unfair > or not. But it is a good reason if they are unfair. For F***'s sake David - no wonder you have problems with people misinterpreting you. Of course if something is unfair it is a good reason to ban it. I can't imagine anyone here would think otherwise. Nor can I believe anyone could read the statement "No! It is a good reason" and conclude anything other than that you consider encrypted signals unfair. Frustrated, Tunbridge Wells -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 16:12:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e746CRv29523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:12:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e746CMt29519 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:12:22 +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 QAA07521 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:08:52 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:09:17 +0000 (EST) Subject: [BLML] Question Time To: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:09:22 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 04/08/2000 04:06:38 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The Australian Parliament has a long-standing tradition where the Opposition can ask the Government questions. Naturally, these questions are not framed to elicit information, but rather to embarass the Government. In the parent thread, Australian Nationals #1, Tim West-meads wrote: "Personally I feel that asking questions solely to create UI is somewhat dubious - I would not criticise an AC for trying to discourage it." During a World Championship in the 1960s, Edgar Kaplan was playing against a Blue Team pair. Kaplan had just written a monograph on the opposing pair's system, but his partner was less well informed. An Italian auction arose which had a subtle inference of which only the Italians and Kaplan were aware. One choice Edgar Kaplan had was to say nothing, then summon the TD after the hand to claim damage because his partner had not been informed, followed by wasting time spent before an AC. Instead, Kaplan asked a series of leading questions which amicably elicited the information on the auction his partner needed. His LHO, RHO and CHO all smiled. I support Kaplan's view that it is both lawful and ethical to ask a series of leading questions about the opponents' bidding system (provided that you are not giving UI about your own hand). If you suspect that they have had a bidding misunderstanding, and the object is to induce them to give MI and/or UI, then IMHO that is no more unethical than penalising an opposing revoke. 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 Aug 4 16:45:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e746ivR29541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:44:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e746irt29537 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:44:53 +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 e746iqK02401 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:44:52 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:44:51 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <036801bffd9d$eed20fa0$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > Herman de Wael wrote: > >The problem just reduces to this : do we want the game to be > >made even more difficult ? > > > >Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are > >"new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them... > > Herman, I've never met you and have no idea whether you're > 20 years old or 70 years old, but now I know.... > > You're old ... because your comments above are those of an > old person. Young people simply don't think like that. The > young people of my acquaintance use logic and commonsense. There is truth in what Herman writes - there are gains to be had from playing an unorthodox approach (i.e. including "new" approaches) because you and your partner are very likely to have more/better/any agreements & experience in the unusual situations that arise and this is worth IMPs/MPs in the long run. A classic example is C.C. Wei's Precision team. > >Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all > >was rosy. NO. Actually I like my opponents to have a defence. When I open a transfer and they double it's annoying not to know if it's 16+, diamonds, a weak no-trump, a heart takeout, etc. > >When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. NO. Playing a system that'll be good when the oppos let it be good isn't exactly a convincing tactic. > >And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their > >defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone > >still uses HUMs. MISLEADING. > > In Australia and New Zealand , HUMS proliferated when and > indeed after heaps of us had our own defences at the table. > > As pointed out elsewhere, HUMs died here when our players > were no longer able to play them throughout World Championships. > > Under-26 pairs in Australia no longer play HUMs in serious > events because HUMs are banned at the World Junior Teams. My Junior partner and I could (and probably would) switch to a HUM on 5 minutes discussion if we could play them in Australian Junior selection events and in WJC-type competition. Of course we can only do this because we've been playing a near-HUM regularly in top & medium level events... which isn't possible some places in the world. If the WJC 2003 regs permit HUM, I'll make a personal guarantee there'll be one! > >The same is true for encryption. Yes, it can be fun to try > >to decrypt opponent's signals, but I believe the game is > >difficult enough as it is. > > > There we go again. Let's keep the game the way it was > in our heyday and not let these younger people play it better > than we do. Alternately - let the silly blighters handicap themselves... penalty doubles still work don't they? Mark -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 18:58:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e748vKt29597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:57:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e748vEt29593 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:57:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.68.160] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KdHv-0000Dk-00; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:57:08 +0100 Message-ID: <005001bffdf1$f0a42c60$a044063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <000001bffd43$92238220$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:44:35 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Burn" ; "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > Is it possible to tell me why L21B does not apply to this situation? I doubt it. But I will try. > I agree that it was not written with in mind the irregularity taking out a > pass card instead of a stop card, but that is not a very strong argument. > The quality of our laws improve dramatically if they can be applied in cases > not foreseen in detail when they were written. The quality of a set of Laws is measured (in part) by the extent to which it deals with all foreseeable cases. It is, in general, a defect when a Law that was not written to cover the case of X has to be used when X happens because there is nothing that covers the situation adequately. In this case, the situation is not especially serious. I cannot see that using the procedure in 21B is going to lead to major difficulties, though there will be minor ones. For example, South passes, West opens a strong club, South corrects his pass to four spades, and everybody passes. North turns up with a good hand, and South will make four spades if he plays the diamond suit of KJx facing A10x for no loser. West is marked with DQ because of his withdrawn strong club, but this is UI to South. Is he compelled by L73 to "misguess" diamonds? > Is it your disgust for the > laws in general that you don't accept this small victory? I am not particularly disgusted with the laws in general. Some of them, notably 1 and 17B, are very fine Laws indeed, and there are at least three others which do not have much wrong with them at all. > is it possible to > deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass card > when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? What is "information"? The term is not defined in the Laws, but the way in which it is used in (for example) Law 75 indicates that "information" is the message conveyed by a call according to partnership understanding, not the call itself. To misinform an opponent (in the context of L21) is to fail to disclose the correct meaning of a call, not to make the wrong call. It could, I suppose, be argued that a player who passes has "informed" the table that he has a hand on which his systemic call is "pass", and that if his systemic call (or the call he wishes to make) is actually "three clubs", he has "misinformed" the table by passing. But that is a somewhat dangerous argument. Suppose a player makes a psychic call. Has he "misinformed" the table? According to the argument above, he has. But in that case, a Director could award an adjusted score under L21B3 every time a psyche occurred. (Of course, given the current WBF attitude to psychic bidding, this may be regarded as entirely acceptable procedure.) > To David: we have a better argument for not allowing the pass to be removed > by a preempt in your example. In Lille or Bermuda or both we decided that a > deliberate change of a call is not allowed when it is based on information > coming from the other players. Grattan will have the right sentence > somewhere. > Another small victory so. Of course a *deliberate* change of call is not allowed in these circumstances, nor would I have thought that a summit meeting in Lille or Bermuda would have been required to implement so obvious a legal requirement. But a player who passes, then sees his LHO reach into the bidding box and decides that he would have been better off opening three clubs, does not have to appear to change his call deliberately (even though this is what he is doing). All he has to do is to pretend that his pass was an accident - that he meant to pull out the Stop card instead - and, as far as I can see, there would then be nothing to stop him from changing his call. 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 Fri Aug 4 18:59:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e748xP229609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:59:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e748xJt29605 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:59:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.68.160] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KdJy-0006Kg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:59:15 +0100 Message-ID: <005f01bffdf2$3ca013e0$a044063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:58:57 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > The pre-1975 Laws made it difficult to establish UI without accusing the > infracting player of cheating. As a result, before 1975 UI was rampant, > since no AC wanted to face a libel suit. > > Edgar Kaplan was instrumental in introducing the new *no-fault* concept of > UI, treating it as a technical matter where the recipient of UI merely had > restricted options. As a result, Bridge has much less of what Kaplan > called *Black Magic* in auctions today. > > L72B1, which David Stevenson used to resolve the President's Cup situation, > has a similar advantage of being no-fault. The TD is not required to > determine whether cheating has occurred, only whether *an offender could > have known ... damage the non-offending side*. A simple technical ruling > keeps the game honest, without the major drama that a draconic > disqualification of a team would incur. But it doesn't keep the game honest. It will not prevent dishonest people from continuing to foul boards on which they have obtained poor results, since for them to do this is a no-lose strategy. Either they get away with it, because the rules are not known or not correctly applied, or they lose the swing they would have lost anyway and are no worse off. Alternatively, as happened in a recent case in England, they lose part of the swing they would have lost anyway. At table A in a match, a player made a slam which could have been defeated by a different opening lead. When the board arrived at table B, the king of hearts had been mysteriously faced in one of the hands, and the board was rendered unplayable thereby. The boards had been taken from one table to the other by the player who had made the unfortunate opening lead. A ruling was given on the basis that the slam would be bid some of the time, made some of the time, defeated some of the time... All terribly correct, no doubt, but the result was that the person who had carried the boards between tables and deliberately fouled the board not only escaped a life ban, but lost fewer IMPs than he might have done. That is the trouble with the "no fault" policy, though I am aware that it has advantages also. If nothing that goes wrong is anybody's fault, things will continue to go wrong. If cheating occurs in a game, and the official in charge of the game determines that it has occurred, the person who cheated should be disqualified. This is not Draconic, it is what is required to keep the game honest. In truth, on the (further) evidence as presented by DWS, I wouldn't go that far. I would have ruled that Manchester lost 11 IMPs on the board, I would have penalised the offending player's team about 3 VPs (depending on the scale in use), and I would have told her that the next time something like this happened, the penalty would indeed be disqualification. If it really is the case only that the player habitually messes around with the curtain cards, she should be firmly dissuaded from so doing, and it may be that no more is necessary. But if it really is the case that the player fouled the board in order to gain unfair advantage, then her team should be disqualified and she should be encouraged to take up some other pastime for a period of - oh, say ten years. 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 Fri Aug 4 20:01:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74A12i29641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:01:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from adi.fr (IDENT:root@[195.219.37.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e74A0qt29637 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from poste12 ([195.219.37.22]) by adi.fr ; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:52:52 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Cohen?= To: Subject: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:58:40 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_11A9_01BFFE0B.54C9F440" 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 V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_11A9_01BFFE0B.54C9F440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -10 % -20% -30% -40% -10 % -20% -30% -40% Visitez en avant première la boutique logiciels et jeux de Shopping.fr : http://www.shopping.fr/logiciels Plus de 3000 Produits avec des réductions de -10 à -40% voire -50% Livraison en France 24/48H maxi pour 1 Frs (oui 1 Frs !!) Exemples Microsoft Encarta English Learning 329 Frs (Prix Public : 399Frs) -18% Norton Antivirus 5.0 267 Frs (Prix Public : 329Frs) -19% Microsoft Money Suite Financière 2000 239 Frs (Prix Public : 299 Frs) -20% Vous trouverez tout sur Shopping.fr: Les jeux : Pc, Playstation, Gameboy, tous les logiciels Culture, loisirs, traitements de texte, utilitaires, développement, les solutions professsionnelles, etc..... Une seule adresse : www.shopping.fr/logiciels ------=_NextPart_000_11A9_01BFFE0B.54C9F440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-10 %  -20%  = -30% =20 -40% -10 %  -20%  -30%  -40%

Visitez en avant premi=E8re la boutique logiciels et jeux de = Shopping.fr=20 :

http://www.shopping.fr/logiciel= s


Plus de 3000 Produits avec des r=E9ductions de = -10 =E0 -40%=20 voire -50%


Livraison en=20 France 24/48H maxi pour 1 Frs (oui 1 Frs !!)

Exemples

Microsoft Encarta = English=20 Learning           = ;  =20 329 Frs         (Prix Public :=20 399Frs)   -18%

Norton Antivirus=20 5.0           &nbs= p;            = ;           =20 267 Frs         (Prix Public : = 329Frs) =20 -19%

Microsoft Money Suite Financi=E8re=20 2000       239 Frs=20         (Prix Public : 299 Frs)  = -20%



Vous trouverez = tout sur=20 Shopping.fr: Les jeux : Pc, Playstation, Gameboy, tous les = logiciels
Culture,=20 loisirs, traitements de texte, utilitaires, d=E9veloppement, les = solutions=20 professsionnelles, etc.....

Une seule adresse : www.shopping.fr/logiciels

  

------=_NextPart_000_11A9_01BFFE0B.54C9F440-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 20:33:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74AX3R29659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:33:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74AWtt29655 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:32:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.45]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05463 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:32:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39899D64.1F050E97@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:27:16 +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: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <036801bffd9d$eed20fa0$35de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > Herman de Wael wrote: > >The problem just reduces to this : do we want the game to be > >made even more difficult ? > > > >Many "new" ideas in bridge work just because they are > >"new". Opponents don't (yet) know how to deal with them... > > Herman, I've never met you and have no idea whether you're > 20 years old or 70 years old, but now I know.... > 39 actually. > You're old ... because your comments above are those of an > old person. Young people simply don't think like that. The > young people of my acquaintance use logic and commonsense. > Exactly. I agree with you in principle. I agree that one should be able to experiment with system, and that regulations should permit this. To a certain degree. But cryptic signalling is a different kettle of fish. Cryptic signalling enables defenders to tell one another thigs that for them is completely clear, while for declarer it introduces another puzzle. My comment about the game being difficult enough as it is must be viewed in that light. I know that as declarer I can try and decypher the code and understand what is being said, but I won't waste my precious resources on that. And that is not "fair", IMO. > >Like with HUM's : as long as no defences were adopted, all > >was rosy. NO. > >When defences were made, it was not nearly as good. NO. > >And now that the opponents don't even have to memorise their > >defences, but can consult them at the table, hardly anyone > >still uses HUMs. MISLEADING. > > In Australia and New Zealand , HUMS proliferated when and > indeed after heaps of us had our own defences at the table. > > As pointed out elsewhere, HUMs died here when our players > were no longer able to play them throughout World Championships. > And I agree with you that the WBF take a completely wrong stance in this instance. All systems ought to be allowed at World Championships. Certainly brown stickers. People competing in a WC ought to be able to deal with this. > Under-26 pairs in Australia no longer play HUMs in serious > events because HUMs are banned at the World Junior Teams. > > >The same is true for encryption. Yes, it can be fun to try > >to decrypt opponent's signals, but I believe the game is > >difficult enough as it is. > > There we go again. Let's keep the game the way it was > in our heyday and not let these younger people play it better > than we do. > But do they ? What is the advantage in cryptic signalling ? I understand the advantage in upside-down count, but not in cryptic one. > 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/ -- 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 Aug 4 20:42:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74AgIf29676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:42:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74AgAt29672 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:42:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA04313 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:42:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Aug 04 12:43:11 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSKMGH7UTG001UTU@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:42:04 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:39:42 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:42:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Cc: Max Bavin Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B65D@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 > > > Is it possible to tell me why L21B does not apply to this situation? > > I doubt it. But I will try. > > In this case, the situation is not especially serious. I cannot see > that using the procedure in 21B is going to lead to major > difficulties, though there will be minor ones. For example, South > passes, West opens a strong club, South corrects his pass to four > spades, and everybody passes. North turns up with a good hand, and > South will make four spades if he plays the diamond suit of KJx facing > A10x for no loser. West is marked with DQ because of his withdrawn > strong club, but this is UI to South. Is he compelled by L73 to > "misguess" diamonds? Yes, that kind of problem arises when we apply for example 21B, regardless of the reason to apply it. An every day job for the TD. This one could be a good example of applying 12C3, one-third making and two-third down one and for both sides the same score even! Unless there is an obvious or less obvious throw-in of course, which enlarges the chance to make it. So my answer is no, he is not compelled to misguess. > > > Is it your disgust for the > > laws in general that you don't accept this small victory? > > I am not particularly disgusted with the laws in general. Some of > them, notably 1 and 17B, are very fine Laws indeed, and there are at > least three others which do not have much wrong with them at all. And that is your definition of 'in general'? To make some progress in this conversation: I agree with law 1 and 17B being fine laws. > > > is it possible to > > deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass > card > > when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? > > What is "information"? The term is not defined in the Laws, but the > way in which it is used in (for example) Law 75 indicates that > "information" is the message conveyed by a call according to > partnership understanding, not the call itself. So according to this approach the pass card gives information. Since the player never intended to put out the pass card he never wanted to distribute this information. More precise: he wanted to give other information. This situation I dared to describe as causing (giving) misinformation. To misinform an > opponent (in the context of L21) is to fail to disclose the correct > meaning of a call, not to make the wrong call. No we start disagreeing, and I really don't see how you can draw this conclusion. Following your example I am going to put down the stopcard combined with 4S. By mechanical mistake I put down the pass card. By which I fail to disclose the correct meaning of my intended call, am I not? > > It could, I suppose, be argued that a player who passes has "informed" > the table that he has a hand on which his systemic call is "pass", and > that if his systemic call (or the call he wishes to make) is actually > "three clubs", he has "misinformed" the table by passing. But that is > a somewhat dangerous argument. Suppose a player makes a psychic call. > Has he "misinformed" the table? No he has not, since he intended to psyche. There we are. My approach has to do with inadvertent calls. > according to the argument above, he > has. Not with my arguments. But in that case, a Director could award an adjusted score under > L21B3 every time a psyche occurred. (Of course, given the current WBF > attitude to psychic bidding, this may be regarded as entirely > acceptable procedure.) > > > To David: we have a better argument for not allowing the pass to be > removed > > by a preempt in your example. In Lille or Bermuda or both we decided > that a > > deliberate change of a call is not allowed when it is based on > information > > coming from the other players. Grattan will have the right sentence > > somewhere. > > Another small victory so. > > Of course a *deliberate* change of call is not allowed in these > circumstances, nor would I have thought that a summit meeting in Lille > or Bermuda would have been required to implement so obvious a legal > requirement. But a player who passes, then sees his LHO reach into the > bidding box and decides that he would have been better off opening > three clubs, does not have to appear to change his call deliberately > (even though this is what he is doing). All he has to do is to pretend > that his pass was an accident - that he meant to pull out the Stop > card instead - and, as far as I can see, there would then be nothing > to stop him from changing his call. Yes, this is true, with one minor detail: he has to convince the TD that he never intended to pass. And we do not ask from TD's to believe all absurdities told to him. But I agree, this is the real problem in 25A (not in 25B, so let us throw A out and leave B): how to be convinced that the call made was inadvertent? I don't know, but I do not accept this as an convincing argument to take 25A out. By the way (I more and more start to like your suggestion (or was it a help without having your personal support?) to extend the meaning of inadvertent in 25A somewhat, avoiding crazy bidding situations, and so to absorb 25B. Do you have this still somewhere in your files? Otherwise you are certainly capable of creating it again. In the meantime I have understood that the question starting this discussion was what kind of information the withdrawn call of LHO gives in case of an inadvertent call. Following my approach, giving misinformation is an infraction. So this information from the withdrawn call is legal for L- and R-HO and illegal for our substitutor. Any objections, very consistent isn't it? Oh yes, of course: these are just suggestions, if Grattan has it on our agenda. ton > David Burn -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 22:50:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74CmGk29805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:48:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74Cm9t29801 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:48:10 +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 FAA11046 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 05:39:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 08:49:25 -0400 Message-ID: <000401bffe12$6b6dfd20$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 In-Reply-To: <39899D64.1F050E97@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > But do they ? > What is the advantage in cryptic signalling ? Is there any reason why you are deliberately substituting vocabulary in the middle of a discussion? Throughout this discussion you have been discussing encrypted signalling. This is a well known and well defined term. I don't know what cryptic signalling is. > I understand the advantage in upside-down count, but not in > cryptic one. Assuming you are referring to encrypted signalling here is an attempt at a brief description. If a pair choses to use encrypted signalling, then they expect to enjoy an advantage during defense. Specifically, on some set of hands, the pair using encrypted signalling will be able to convey count and attitude signals in such a manner that their partner can comprehend the signal. Since declarer is does not immediately possess the key to unlock the signal, declarer is often unable to read the signalling pattern until late into the hand. However, in some cases the declarer is actually able to use bridge logic to determine the the emaning of the signaling pattern without possessing the key. In this case, the declarer can use this information to derive the key. As an example, I will play UDCA is I have an odd number of trumps and standard C/A if I have an even number of trumps. Declarer is able to determine that I am currently signalling UDCA and then knows to play me for an odd number of trumps. There are players who believe that the advantages from the first case outweigh the disadvantages from the second. (Personally, I have enough trouble signally without any encryption, but I still think this method should be allowed) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOYq71CGkJ7YU62vZEQIL3QCg9hmB8M6vjjHsApdoIodfC/4pCBIAoLM7 tb8jLXwmulgtI/pqmaoPTYIf =YOhA -----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 Aug 4 23:19:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74DJaW29844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:19:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74DJTt29840 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:19:30 +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 PAA27498; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:18:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA02762; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:19:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000804152814.008c1b60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:28:14 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting In-Reply-To: References: <200008021022.LAA20609@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200008021022.LAA20609@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 14:07 2/08/00 +0100, you wrote: > > How do you know it is? If I play a double as guaranteeing four of the >opposite major, then I would expect my partner sometimes to bid that >major with three cards [I have seen it happen] AG : you mean 3H may be bid on a 3-card suit ? *that* is alertable ! by the way, don't you play negative responsive doubles ? But the initial question was not that ; it was "does one have to alert a bid whose meaning comes from pure bridge logic, if opponents aren't -by their own fault- in a position to apply it ? The LB says both yes and no. This was just an example case -perhaps a poor one. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 23:22:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74DLtY29856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:21:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74DLit29852 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:21:45 +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 PAA27720; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:20:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA03692; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:21:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000804153025.008be700@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:30:25 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk 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 18:25 2/08/00 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >You cut him for the second rubber, agree weak (11.5-14) and double, and >second hand (nv vs vul) he opens 1NT - do you alert? > >The bidding proceeds -P-P-X-2C, do you alert now? > >Opponents peter out in 3H. The auction, play to the first three tricks, >dummy and your own holding mean you are now *sure* he holds 9-10pts with 6 >clubs to AK - do you say anything? AG : of course you don't ! Your partner has no right to know you have enough points to know he hasn't a genuine 1NT. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 23:32:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74DWIj29879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:32:18 +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 e74DW7t29870 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:32:08 +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 13KhZq-000DGk-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 13:31:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:44:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because >> > they are >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. >> >> >> >> No! It is a perfectly good reason. >> > >> > I disagree that encrypted signals are by any means unfair. >> >> Sorry, you are not disagreeing. I do not say whether they are >> unfair >> or not. But it is a good reason if they are unfair. > >For F***'s sake David - no wonder you have problems with people >misinterpreting you. Of course if something is unfair it is a good >reason to ban it. I can't imagine anyone here would think otherwise. >Nor can I believe anyone could read the statement "No! It is a good >reason" and conclude anything other than that you consider encrypted >signals unfair. Someone makes a simple statement, and I disagree with it. Now it may be obvious to you that I should assume they meant something quite different, and I should answer something quite different from what was written, but I don't swing that way. Of things written here and on two newsgroups, I believe about 25% to be anything between over- simplistic, very strange and downright stupid, and I see no reason why I should sort the wheat out fro the chaff. When someone asks a question or puts a point of view that I do not agree with, I say so, and to assume I mean something different from what I say I consider completely ridiculous. It is not up to me to decide whether whoever wrote >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because >> > they are >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. meant what they say, but I feel I am at liberty to disagree with it, which I 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 Fri Aug 4 23:32:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74DWP729882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:32:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74DVxt29868 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13KhZq-000BRm-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 13:31:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:49:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Question Time 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 wrote: >The Australian Parliament has a long-standing tradition where the >Opposition can ask the Government questions. Naturally, these questions >are not framed to elicit information, but rather to embarass the >Government. > >In the parent thread, Australian Nationals #1, Tim West-meads wrote: > >"Personally I feel that asking questions solely to create UI is somewhat >dubious - I would not criticise an AC for trying to discourage it." > >During a World Championship in the 1960s, Edgar Kaplan was playing against >a Blue Team pair. Kaplan had just written a monograph on the opposing >pair's system, but his partner was less well informed. An Italian auction >arose which had a subtle inference of which only the Italians and Kaplan >were aware. One choice Edgar Kaplan had was to say nothing, then summon >the TD after the hand to claim damage because his partner had not been >informed, followed by wasting time spent before an AC. > >Instead, Kaplan asked a series of leading questions which amicably elicited >the information on the auction his partner needed. His LHO, RHO and CHO >all smiled. > >I support Kaplan's view that it is both lawful and ethical to ask a series >of leading questions about the opponents' bidding system (provided that you >are not giving UI about your own hand). If you suspect that they have had >a bidding misunderstanding, and the object is to induce them to give MI >and/or UI, then IMHO that is no more unethical than penalising an opposing >revoke. Since when has it been a player's job to police the infractions of the game? If you suspect that oppos have committed an infraction then it is the TD's job and not yours to deal with it. This is not to be compared with parliaments, which are run for the benefit of the media. -- 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 Aug 4 23:32:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74DWQK29883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:32:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74DWBt29871 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:32:12 +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 13KhZq-000DGl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 13:31:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:52:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e74DWHt29878 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk René Cohen wrote: > > -10 %  -20%  -30%  -40% -10 %  -20%  -30%  -40% > > Visitez en avant première la boutique logiciels et jeux de > Shopping.fr : Oho! Spam on BLML! And it's French! Claude? Jean-Pierre? Edouard? Philippe? C'est terrible, n'est-ce-pas? -- 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 Aug 4 23:43:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74DhQI29915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:43:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74DhJt29911 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:43:20 +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 PAA24997; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:43:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA12297; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:43:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000804155204.008625b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:52:04 +0200 To: Petrus Schuster OSB , BLML From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] False Claim in Canberra In-Reply-To: <39894349.72671679@eduhi.at> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:02 3/08/00 +0200, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >Ridiculous: "ex falso quodlibet", i.e. (A => B) is TRUE whenever A is >FALSE, is a well-established logical fact; obviously, the claim is good. >How about a course in Aristotelian logic for a PP? AG : this reminds me of an anecdote. The mathematician Heaviside explained the 'ex falso quodlibet' and was then challenged to prove that he was the Pope, given that 2+2=5. He proceeded as following : 2 + 2 = 5. Substract 2 from both sides. You get 2 = 3. Substract 1 from both sides. You get 1 = 2. Now, the Pope and myself are two persons. But, since 1 = 2, the Pope and myself are one single person. QED. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 4 23:48:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74Dmkw29927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:48:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74Dmdt29923 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:48:40 +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 PAA00393; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:47:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id PAA14392; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:48:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000804155724.00863e00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:57:24 +0200 To: Peter Newman , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000804083616.00ae7880@sercit> References: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:58 4/08/00 +1000, you wrote: > >One other neat idea that was around a few years back in Australia was the >concept of "Protected Pairs". Any pair with a player with less than X >masterpoints (or perhaps it was average of the pair, I can't recall >exactly) was allowed to claim "Protected Pair" status and opponents weren't >allowed to play a HUM against them. Of course, many of the protected pairs >didn't care what their opponents played and everyone got on with the game. AG : wow ! The best idea I've read for a long time ! What are we waiting for ! (as you would have guessed, I'm hot about HUMs. I played Kamikaze Diamond 13 years, then they were banned) A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 00:16:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74EFd429949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:15:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74EFWt29945 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:15:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA28708 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA14432 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 10:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008041415.KAA14432@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >From: "David Burn" > The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The > penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has > just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair > advantage thereby. My first instinct is to look at L72B1 in these sorts of situations. In this case, I'm wondering whether the TD could let the board be played at the other table. Sure, East and West know each other's hands, but it looks as though they will be passing throughout and defending irrelevantly anyway. And if they do something odd, or on a different deal where the knowledge matters, the TD can then give an _assigned_ adjusted score. Perhaps I'm too aware of EK's dictum, "If you don't like the result of one law, find a different law." But isn't there some way L72B1 can help out here? Or is there any other "could have known" law one could apply? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 00:53:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74ErXM29972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:53:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74ErPt29968 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:53:26 +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 OAA06006 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:53:14 GMT Message-ID: <398AD8E4.909A7D1E@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:53:24 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson a écrit : > > René Cohen wrote: > > > > -10 % -20% -30% -40% -10 % -20% -30% -40% > > > > Visitez en avant première la boutique logiciels et jeux de > > Shopping.fr : > > Oho! Spam on BLML! > > And it's French! Claude? Jean-Pierre? Edouard? Philippe? > > C'est terrible, n'est-ce-pas? I received also this mail but i didn't know for sure whether it was adressed to blml or only to my own adress. I can present you all with apologizes for my countryman's harassment, but (sorry) i don't know this man and can't act to stop him. Maybe, a possibility would be, for our supervisor to forbid anybody not subbscriber in the list, to post to the list. JP Rocafort > > -- > 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 00:58:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74EwRe29986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:58:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74EwLt29982 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:58:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.146] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KivQ-0006W4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:58:17 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bffe24$642b4ba0$92bd01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:58:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > DWS wrote: > It is not up to me to decide whether whoever wrote > >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because > >> > they are > >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. > meant what they say, but I feel I am at liberty to disagree with it, > which I do. The sentence, to a speaker of English, means: "Can we accept that it is ridiculous to ban encrypted signals for the reason that they are unfair?" the implication being that the writer considers encrypted signals not to be unfair. To disagree with the statement by saying that "it is a perfectly good reason" implies that the dissenter believes that encrypted signals are unfair. It does not mean that the dissenter takes no position on the subject of encrypted signals, but believes that they should be banned were they found by some other persons to be unfair. However, as has been brought home to me on many occasions, the ability to speak good English and the ability to interpret the Laws of bridge are not merely unrelated, they are at times mutually incompatible. 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 Sat Aug 5 01:09:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74F8tg00007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:08:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74F8nt29999 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.146] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Kj5Y-0007hQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:08:44 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01bffe25$da333fa0$92bd01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200008041415.KAA14432@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:08:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > >From: "David Burn" > > The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The > > penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has > > just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair > > advantage thereby. > > My first instinct is to look at L72B1 in these sorts of situations. In > this case, I'm wondering whether the TD could let the board be played > at the other table. Sure, East and West know each other's hands, but > it looks as though they will be passing throughout and defending > irrelevantly anyway. And if they do something odd, or on a different > deal where the knowledge matters, the TD can then give an _assigned_ > adjusted score. What the TD did was perfectly sensible - he awarded a slam swing against the offending side, using Law 72 for the purpose. I don't have a problem with that (though I suppose he could have let North-South bid their hands lest they should duplicate the ineptitude of their opponents, but this would seem to me to create an unnecessary jeopardy for what was after all the non-offending side). > Perhaps I'm too aware of EK's dictum, "If you don't like the result > of one law, find a different law." But isn't there some way L72B1 > can help out here? Or is there any other "could have known" law > one could apply? One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone somewhere that could be where they live. If the TD believed, as he apparently did believe with good reason, that the infraction was inadvertent, then the course he followed was a wise and just course. But on the evidence first presented, it seemed to me that there was at least a strong presumption that the infraction was not inadvertent, in which case there was a great deal more that needed to be done. My concern is that, in too many cases of this kind, we shelter behind "could have known" for fear of calling a cheat a cheat. 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 Sat Aug 5 01:16:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74FGVP00024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:16:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from areca.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.156]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74FGNt00020 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by areca.wanadoo.fr; 4 Aug 2000 17:16:22 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.24.45) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 4 Aug 2000 17:16:11 +0200 Message-ID: <005b01bffe27$1bbe4fe0$2d18fac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: B.O.L. & Re: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 17:17:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > René Cohen wrote: > > > > -10 % -20% -30% -40% -10 % -20% -30% -40% > > > > Visitez en avant première la boutique logiciels et jeux de > > Shopping.fr : > > Oho! Spam on BLML! > > And it's French! Claude? Jean-Pierre? Edouard? Philippe? And why not for Bertrand and Olivier? we are 6 froggies on the list! And, as you speak fluently french, you can please have a quick look to a new bridge site (yepeee). The western part of France, Britany (Breizh for celtes and Bretagne for french) is on line! All you want to know about bridge in this part of thd bridge world (not everything by now, but i am working hard on it). You have even an annex for international event (Lexical, regulations...) If you want to spend some holydays in this really very nice country, you must visit this site so you can play bridge tournament. We have fine ones every week-end (and even more) till end of October. You don't speak (or understand) french? Just mail me directly, I shall help you, it's my job. I'll be in holydays from 24th of august to 3rd of september (very nice tournaments in La Baule). May be a nice stage before or after Maastricht, thinks to it. olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Special cheers to all the TD who will go to Maastricht, hoping to go to Jerusalem (or is it Naples, who knows?) in march. So now, just try www.bretagnebridgecomite.com A+OB > > C'est terrible, n'est-ce-pas? > > -- > 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 Sat Aug 5 01:27:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74FRbI00038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:27:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74FRPt00034 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:27:26 +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 13KjNU-000CuX-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:27:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 14:50:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <200008021022.LAA20609@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200008021022.LAA20609@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20000804152814.008c1b60@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000804152814.008c1b60@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 14:07 2/08/00 +0100, you wrote: >> >> How do you know it is? If I play a double as guaranteeing four of the >>opposite major, then I would expect my partner sometimes to bid that >>major with three cards [I have seen it happen] > >AG : you mean 3H may be bid on a 3-card suit ? *that* is alertable ! >by the way, don't you play negative responsive doubles ? Me? It is not me that we are concerned with, it is my oppos who are playing a strange system. If they are playing a double that is unknown to me, how on earth do you expect me to know whether 3H shows four? Why should it be alertable if it shows three - that is a natural bid, is it not? How do I know what they play a further double as? Is 1D X P 1H alertable in normal standard beginner bridge? Can it not be a three card suit in a 3=3=4=3 hand? That is what I teach my beginners! I doubt that 3H on a three card suit is alertable, being clearly natural. >But the initial question was not that ; it was >"does one have to alert a bid whose meaning comes from pure bridge logic, >if opponents aren't -by their own fault- in a position to apply it ? The LB >says both yes and no. >This was just an example case -perhaps a poor one. The answer to that one depends on the sponsoring organisation. It is certainly No in the ACBL, the EBU and the WBU because the alerting regs are not written that way. As for other SOs, it depends on the alerting regs. But the answer is normally No. However, the Law book has nothing to do with it except that it enables SOs to establish alerting regs. Furthermore, it should be No. Alerting regs are designed to help oppos of all standards, including oppos whose bridge logic is different from the actual players concerned. In fact this is a good example: you are producing some logic for playing this as a fit raise - and I disagree with your logic, I believe it to be wrong. Are you saying I do not have a right to being correctly informed because my bridge logic disagrees with yours? -- 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 Sat Aug 5 02:17:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74GGuS00067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:16:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74GGot00063 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:16:51 +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 MAA12146 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:18:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008041618.MAA12146@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <002b01bffe25$da333fa0$92bd01d5@D457300> References: <200008041415.KAA14432@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002b01bffe25$da333fa0$92bd01d5@D457300> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:18:20 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4 August 2000 at 16:08, "David Burn" wrote: >> > >From: "David Burn" >> > The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The >> > penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has >> > just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair >> > advantage thereby. >> Like Steve, I don't want to assume the "with a view". It admittedly looks incredibly suspicious, but I'm going to be a good little director and leave allegations of C* and unE* C* to the C&E people. More David Burn: >What the TD did was perfectly sensible - he awarded a slam swing >against the offending side, using Law 72 for the purpose. > [...] >One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone >somewhere that could be where they live. If the TD believed, as he >apparently did believe with good reason, that the infraction was >inadvertent, then the course he followed was a wise and just course. >But on the evidence first presented, it seemed to me that there was at >least a strong presumption that the infraction was not inadvertent, in >which case there was a great deal more that needed to be done. My >concern is that, in too many cases of this kind, we shelter behind >"could have known" for fear of calling a cheat a cheat. [like DB, I am taking into consideration the report the "later" information that this player "frequently" looks at opponents' curtain cards] I look at this as a "belt and braces" situation. I would rule "slam swing", and, if there is a standard penalty for touching oppo's curtain cards w/o permission, applying that; and I would suggest to the DIC that there might be a case for direct C&E (but I don't think so, because I think it was inadvertent); and if he chooses not to go that far on a single instance, I would submit a Recorder form on the situation. I don't believe N should profit from the situation; equity is served by returning the most likely occurrance, but if there's a standard way to penalize over and above, I would use it, if just to remind N that what he does "regularly" is wrong, and the reason it is wrong is that it can end up looking *really* suspicious; and a semi-permanent record is made of it so that if he was trying it on, either he will stop, or "once is coincidence, twice is deliberate, thrice is malice" will take effect. 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 Sat Aug 5 02:31:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74GV8X00080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:31:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74GV1t00076 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:31:02 +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 MAA05663 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA14559 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:30:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008041630.MAA14559@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > The real question that this poses is this : can the alert > procedure be any different depending on whether or not some > previous bid has been explained or not ? I agree with Herman. BLML ought to be able to answer the above. This thread convinces me that alert regulations and actual practice differ so widely in different areas that we probably have little useful to say on whether a particular call needs an alert or not. It is still interesting to compare practices around the world. > I feel that any previous explanation or absence thereof does > not affect the alertability of 4Di. I agree with this. Giving or not giving an explanation may mitigate _damage_ from failure to alert, but I don't think it changes the _requirement_ to alert or not. The question still remains which calls need to be alerted. Herman's example of completing a transfer is a good example. That is generally not alertable in North America, but apparently it is alertable in Belgium, if I understand Herman correctly. (If not in Belgium, it probably is alertable somewhere in the world.) Either way, I don't think it matters whether the transfer bid itself was explained or not; the completion is or is not alertable according to regulation. I'm curious about another example. Consider the uncontested auction 1H-3C!-3H-, 3C being alerted. Case 1: 3C was an artificial limit raise of hearts; 3H is a signoff. Case 2: 3C was an artificial game force; 3H shows good hearts and of course is forcing. Is 3H alertable in either of the above auctions? I'm fairly sure neither case would be alertable in North America, although given our alert rules, nobody can be certain. What about Belgium, France, and England? I suspect at least one has to be alerted in England because one is forcing and the other isn't. > From: David Stevenson > Is 1D X P 1H > alertable in normal standard beginner bridge? Can it not be a three > card suit in a 3=3=4=3 hand? That is what I teach my beginners! Unlike the above, the 3H bid in the orginal auction was a _free bid_, being made over 2S. It was also two levels higher. I suppose 3H could be bid on a three-card suit, but it strikes me as wildly unlikely, especially if a responsive double was available. Takeout doubler has guaranteed four hearts in the actual auction but even playing normal takeout doubles quite likely has four, especially after the spade raise. Thus while the set of hands that would bid 3H is no doubt larger in the actual case than with normal agreements, I don't think it is very much larger. > >But the initial question was not that ; it was > >"does one have to alert a bid whose meaning comes from pure bridge logic, > >if opponents aren't -by their own fault- in a position to apply it ? > The answer to that one depends on the sponsoring organisation. It is > certainly No in the ACBL, the EBU and the WBU because the alerting regs > are not written that way. I thought you were arguing 'yes', that the 4D bid needs an alert. Or do you think the 4D bid that was made shows something other than what is given by pure bridge logic? We haven't been told there was any special agreement. I would expect 4D to be passable if 3H was a tactical bid on a three-card suit, and it would be astonishing if 4D is not raisable. If there are agreements to the contrary, then I would expect that the bid needs to be alerted almost anywhere. (But see above about local regulations and practice.) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the 4D bid shows 1) a useful diamond suit, 2) strength to play at the four level, and 3) nothing else special (the heart length already having been shown). Does it need an alert? By bridge logic 4D will seldom be passed, since 4H is game and 4D isn't, and the previous bidding has already revealed an almost-certain 8-card heart fit. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 02:38:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74GcZY00092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:38:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74GcTt00088 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:38:30 +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 <20000804163825.JLTS24297.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:38:25 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:38:57 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-to: <002b01bffe25$da333fa0$92bd01d5@D457300> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > What the TD did was perfectly sensible - he awarded a slam swing > against the offending side, using Law 72 for the purpose. I don't have > a problem with that (though I suppose he could have let North-South > bid their hands lest they should duplicate the ineptitude of their > opponents, but this would seem to me to create an unnecessary jeopardy > for what was after all the non-offending side). > > > Perhaps I'm too aware of EK's dictum, "If you don't like the result > > of one law, find a different law." But isn't there some way L72B1 > > can help out here? Or is there any other "could have known" law > > one could apply? > > One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone > somewhere that could be where they live. If the TD believed, as he > apparently did believe with good reason, that the infraction was > inadvertent, then the course he followed was a wise and just course. > But on the evidence first presented, it seemed to me that there was at > least a strong presumption that the infraction was not inadvertent, in > which case there was a great deal more that needed to be done. My > concern is that, in too many cases of this kind, we shelter behind > "could have known" for fear of calling a cheat a cheat. > > David Burn > London, England > Right on!! Perhaps something could be put into conditions of contest.... If X happens then Y is the penalty. Period. ACBL has something along those lines for fouled boards in matchpoints when scored across several sections in NABC's When a fouled board is identified, they figure out the location the foul occurred and both pairs are penalized one full board. The only way a side can be absolved is if the other side steps forward and takes full credit for fouling the board... We had an appeal in Vancouver (Case 36) involving a fouled board. Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 02:58:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74GwT500111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:58:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74GwNt00107 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 02:58:23 +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 e74GwVQ89617 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:58:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000804125748.00b29cc0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 13:00:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:19 AM 8/3/00, Herman wrote: >The real question that this poses is this : can the alert >procedure be any different depending on whether or not some >previous bid has been explained or not ? > >For instance : When I open 2Cl, this contains a weak 2 in >diamonds. >Partner will usually reply 2Di, and if opponents are aware >of the meaning of 2Cl, the meaning of 2Di is self-evident. >So an alert cannot be needed, and I would not expect to be >ruled against if an alert were forgotten, when 2Cl has been >explained. > >But that does not, IMO, alter the fact that 2Di must be >alerted. > >I feel that any previous explanation or absence thereof does >not affect the alertability of 4Di. > >Having said that, I feel that 4Di needs to be alerted both >with and without an explanation of the double. > >But I must stress that I am confident on the principle (same >alert regardless) and less confident about the application >(should 4 Di be alerted regardless). > >It may well be that I have bidding theory backwards and that > >1Sp X 2Sp 3He >X 4Di > >always shows heart support. > >To me however, it does not. And an alert procedure is >designed to help the weaker players as well. I would like >an alert. Under ACBL guidelines, you should alert any call if its meaning is one that you would not expect the opponents to anticipate absent an alert. This deals with the current problem quite nicely. Had the double of 1S been explained, the meaning of 4D would be relatively obvious, as it is natural within the context of the auction (which has become known to the opponents via the explanation), so there would be no reason to expect them not to anticipate it, and no need to alert it. However, in this case, since the 1S bid was never explained, it is reasonable to assume that the opponents do not have the appropriate context in which to anticipate the meaning of 4D, which makes it reasonable to assume that they may not understand it, so it should be alerted. This, IMO, coincides with plain common sense. There is no reason to alert when the forthcoming explanation, if requested, would be simply redundant to an explanation already given earlier in the auction. But this has no force or applicability to the situation where the forthcoming explanation would be redundant to an explanation which was not given earlier because it was not requested. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 03:10:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74HAUO00141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:10:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74HAOt00137 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:10:19 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:10:19 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone > somewhere that could be where they live. David, could you decipher this lively metaphore for non-native speakers whose English can by no means called flawless (like me)? Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 03:34:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74HY9400173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:34:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74HY3t00169 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.176.152] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KlLo-0007ZK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:33:41 +0100 Message-ID: <002301bffe3a$1977c0a0$98b001d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:33:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 6:10 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] President's Cup > > One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone > > somewhere that could be where they live. > > David, could you decipher this lively metaphore for non-native > speakers whose English can by no means called flawless (like me)? Sorry, Konrad. There is a phrase in English: "we can do X till the cows come home", the implication being that X won't have any effect however often we do it. I am sure there are equivalents in other languages, though I don't know what the Polish version might be. 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 Sat Aug 5 03:54:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74HsfE00200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:54:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74HsYt00195 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:54:35 +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 13Klfw-000PPr-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:54:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:52:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup 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 , Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com writes >> One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone >> somewhere that could be where they live. > > > David, could you decipher this lively metaphore for non-native >speakers whose English can by no means called flawless (like me)? > > In England doing something "until the cows come home" means doing it forever. The references to where they could live are, I think references to the recent ungentlemanly conduct regarding quite where "around here" *is*. This doubt as to the precise location of Upton, Cheshire is entirely understandable as about the only way to get to Upton is by ox-drawn cart, and that only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. 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 Aug 5 04:14:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74IERq00223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:14:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e74IELt00219 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:14:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26387; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:10:54 -0700 Message-Id: <200008041810.LAA26387@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Aug 2000 20:10:19 PDT." Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:10:55 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone > > somewhere that could be where they live. > > > David, could you decipher this lively metaphore for non-native > speakers whose English can by no means called flawless (like me)? > > Konrad Ciborowski The English expression is actually "until the cows come home", which means indefinitely or _ad nauseam_ or something like that. -- 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 Aug 5 04:34:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74IYD900240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:34:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e74IY6t00236 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:34:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 85408 invoked for bounce); 4 Aug 2000 18:34:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.97) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 4 Aug 2000 18:34:01 -0000 Message-ID: <011e01bffe42$c3985420$613a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Multi Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:32:09 +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 "David Stevenson" wrote: > If you go to > > http://blakjak.com/wbf_cnbk.htm > > you will find a description of the Multi taken from the Conventions > Booklet: downloadable copies in Word and text of the whole booklet: > comments by Grattan. The convention I know as "Multi 2D" is not contained in the following description: ---- snip ---- MULTI 2 An opening 2 shows one of three types Weak two in a major suit A strong balanced hand of a defined range Strong three-suited hand ---- snap ---- What about strong twos in a minor? 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 Sat Aug 5 05:08:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74J8Kg00269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 05:08:20 +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 (f9.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74J8Et00265 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 05:08:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 12:08:06 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.22 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 12:08:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2000 19:08:06.0145 (UTC) FILETIME=[51FECF10:01BFFE47] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Tim West-meads wrote: > >In-Reply-To: > >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because > >> > they are > >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. > >> >> > >> >> No! It is a perfectly good reason. > >> > > >> > I disagree that encrypted signals are by any means unfair. > >> > >> Sorry, you are not disagreeing. I do not say whether they are > >> unfair > >> or not. But it is a good reason if they are unfair. > > > >For F***'s sake David - no wonder you have problems with people > >misinterpreting you. Of course if something is unfair it is a good > >reason to ban it. I can't imagine anyone here would think otherwise. > >Nor can I believe anyone could read the statement "No! It is a good > >reason" and conclude anything other than that you consider encrypted > >signals unfair. > > Someone makes a simple statement, and I disagree with it. A specious argument. > Now it may be obvious to you that I should assume they meant something >quite different, and I should answer something quite different from what >was written, but I don't swing that way. You should reconsider why you're the only person who misinterpretted the original comment. >Of things written here and on >two newsgroups, I believe about 25% to be anything between over- >simplistic, very strange and downright stupid, and I see no reason why I >should sort the wheat out fro the chaff. When someone asks a question >or puts a point of view that I do not agree with, I say so, and to >assume I mean something different from what I say I consider completely >ridiculous. I'll help you a bit. I think you're back-peddling and this is all chaff. > It is not up to me to decide whether whoever wrote > >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because > >> > they are > >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. >meant what they say, but I feel I am at liberty to disagree with it, >which I do. I feel myself similarly relieved of the obligation to understand your posts before responding and will continue to assert you said that encrypted signals are inherently unfair. After all, it's not up to me to decide whether you meant what you said. (sic) You have misrepresented yourself. We are not all collectively idiots, your personal opinion of me (whatever that may be) aside. The most irreverent, 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 Aug 5 07:24:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74LO5v00345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:24:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74LNwt00341 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:23:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.31.196] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KowZ-0002i7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:23:52 +0100 Message-ID: <011201bffe5a$41bbc640$d070073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B65D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:23:36 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > > In this case, the situation is not especially serious. I cannot see > > that using the procedure in 21B is going to lead to major > > difficulties, though there will be minor ones. For example, South > > passes, West opens a strong club, South corrects his pass to four > > spades, and everybody passes. North turns up with a good hand, and > > South will make four spades if he plays the diamond suit of KJx facing > > A10x for no loser. West is marked with DQ because of his withdrawn > > strong club, but this is UI to South. Is he compelled by L73 to > > "misguess" diamonds? > > Yes, that kind of problem arises when we apply for example 21B, regardless > of the reason to apply it. An every day job for the TD. This one could be a > good example of applying 12C3, one-third making and two-third down one and > for both sides the same score even! Unless there is an obvious or less > obvious throw-in of course, which enlarges the chance to make it. So my > answer is no, he is not compelled to misguess. Well, if he is going to get 33% of 620 and 66% of -100, then his best course of action appears to me not to correct his call (since the fact that his opponents' withdrawn calls are UI to him but AI to them is almost bound to place his side at a disadvantage). Certainly, it seems to me that as a minimum requirement, the TD needs to explain carefully the consequences of a change of call. Of course, since his partner will have vast amounts of UI if the player announces that he wants to change his call, then on hearing the rules decides that he doesn't want to change it after all, the poor guy may very well end up wishing that Law 25 actually read: "A call once made may not be changed". Now, where have I heard that idea before? > And that is your definition of 'in general'? To make some progress in this > conversation: I agree with law 1 and 17B being fine laws. Let me go on record as stating that Law 45A is a model of clarity and precision, and that Law 80C appears to have no discernible flaw. > > What is "information"? The term is not defined in the Laws, but the > > way in which it is used in (for example) Law 75 indicates that > > "information" is the message conveyed by a call according to > > partnership understanding, not the call itself. > > So according to this approach the pass card gives information. The pass card gives no information of itself other than the trivial fact that the player has removed the pass card from the bidding box and placed it in such a fashion as would normally indicate that pass is the call he wishes to make. This may have happened for one of two reasons: pass really is the call the player wishes to make; or the player has pulled out the wrong card from the bidding box. It does not, for example, convey the information that the player has a weak hand, for he may be playing a strong pass system, or have decided to pass with a strong hand in the hope of inducing his opponents to commit an indiscretion (not normally a wise course, but perhaps the opponents are also playing a strong pass). He may also, of course, have mis-sorted his hand or miscounted his high-card points. In short, the pass card of itself does not of necessity convey the information that the player wishes to pass, or has a hand on which most players would normally pass. It merely conveys the "information" (perhaps "datum" would be a better term) that the player *has* passed. To put this another way, the "information" dealt with by Law 75 (and, by extension, Law 21) is of this nature: "that bid of 2H shows at least a five-card spade suit", or "that double is systemically for takeout". It is not of this nature: "my partner wishes to bid 2H", or "my partner thinks that double is the correct call with his hand". Suppose that you were to ask me for the "information content" of my partner's double, and I told you that it meant either that he wanted to double, or that he had pulled out the double card by mistake. Would you consider yourself any better "informed"? > Since the > player never intended to put out the pass card he never wanted to distribute > this information. More precise: he wanted to give other information. This > situation I dared to describe as causing (giving) misinformation. If you regard the placing of the pass card on the table as conveying the information that the player wishes to pass, then your argument is sound. But, as I have tried to explain, I do not believe that this is "information" at all, and certainly not in the sense that the word is used elsewhere in the Laws of bridge (in particular, Law 21, though the word is used only in the negative "misinformation" there). > > To misinform an > > opponent (in the context of L21) is to fail to disclose the correct > > meaning of a call, not to make the wrong call. > > No we start disagreeing, and I really don't see how you can draw this > conclusion. I believe it to be quite obvious. To "inform" is defined in my dictionary as "to pass on knowledge"; that is, to make someone aware of that of which he was not previously aware. If you tell your opponent that a bid of 2H shows spades, you have given your opponent "information"; if you tell him that it means your partner wanted to bid 2H, you have not, for he was already aware of (or could infer) that for himself. > Following your example I am going to put down the stopcard combined with 4S. > By mechanical mistake I put down the pass card. By which I fail to disclose > the correct meaning of my intended call, am I not? I am a little confused by this; if you mean that you have failed to disclose the fact that the pass you have made has occurred on a hand on which you would normally open 1S, that is so. But you are under no obligation to disclose this, and your failure to do so does not constitute "misinformation" within the meaning of the Laws. > > It could, I suppose, be argued that a player who passes has "informed" > > the table that he has a hand on which his systemic call is "pass", and > > that if his systemic call (or the call he wishes to make) is actually > > "three clubs", he has "misinformed" the table by passing. But that is > > a somewhat dangerous argument. Suppose a player makes a psychic call. > > Has he "misinformed" the table? > No he has not, since he intended to psyche. There we are. My approach has to > do with inadvertent calls. Yes, but Law 21 says nothing about whether a call was inadvertent or not. It merely prescribes what happens if a player makes a call on the basis of misinformation, whether or not that misinformation was deliberate. Of course, since I do not believe that Law 21 covers the position under discussion at all, I do not believe that it should be invoked in either case. But if you take the position that a player who opens 1S "informs" the table that he has a hand on which he regards 1S as the correct call in his methods, then what will you make of a case like this? The auction proceeds: West North East South 1S Pass 2C Pass Pass ? At this point, South informs West that he didn't mean to bid 1S. Can West have his call over 1S back? No, for East has already called. Are East-West entitled to an adjusted score under L21B3 because South "misinformed" West when he bid 1S? If so, what is the difference between this situation and one in which South does not inform West of his error? > By the way (I more and more start to like your suggestion (or was it a help > without having your personal support?) to extend the meaning of inadvertent > in 25A somewhat, avoiding crazy bidding situations, and so to absorb 25B. I do not recall ever having suggested anything other than Burn's Law 25A, cited above. No one should be allowed to change any call, whatever the "reason" (or lack of reason) for having made it in the first place. > Any objections, very consistent isn't it? I don't really object violently to the notion that L21B should be extended, or a new Law created, that specifically covers the case of a player who wishes to change his call following the change of an inadvertent call by his RHO. Given that I don't think RHO should be allowed to change his call at all, you can scarcely expect me to care what happens to anybody else when he does. What I do object to is the assumption that Law 21B as presently worded covers the situation under discussion. 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 Sat Aug 5 07:45:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74Lje400368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:45:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74LjXt00364 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:45:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h67.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.67]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74LjLW21343 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:45:21 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <398B3927.C3FA5E59@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 01:44:08 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Why no HUMs? References: <398B36F6.A729D90C@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi all:) > Was silent and just reading for a long time - cause have too much work. But the discussion became to touch the very basis of the game - and I cannot held myself tongue:) > Sorry in advance - but the post will be rather long: the theme is extremely important. > At the very beginning I'd like to underline that for many years I used so HUM systems of bidding as HUM methods of signaling. Moreover - I was co-inventor of some of them. I can write rather lot of articles for defence of HUM-methods but this > discussion deals with another attribute: fairness. Nevertheless I should remark that HUM systems and defending methods changed our view on bridge strategy, made us to learn once > more the aim of different parts of bridge - the game did become wider range. Personally me - I like very much highly destructive system (that creates obstacles to constructive bidding so for opponents as for us). Cause I think that bridge - as > school to make right decision in condition of lack of information - becomes more interesting and more close to that one from Ely's time - where common logic was more important than system knowledge:) The more constructive opp's system - the more > destructive > bidding should be used (it is my strategical position). > We need notice that there is neither one HUM-system nor one efending HUM-method: there are a lot of them, difference between them is greater than between different natural (and/or semi-natural) systems. That's why when Peter wrote that "in > Australia every pair had a defense to HUM" - it was not full true: they might prepare only to one HUM-system (might be - with some small variations) that was popular there. > After this foreword I'd like to state my personal position: there are a lot of cases where the very HUM's usage is unfair! There are at least two reasons for such a conclusion - and I'll try to make it more clear: > 1. Even in case of rather simplest HUM methods of signals my explanations took at least 5 minutes. Full explanation of HUM system should consist not only positive meanings - but either negative. Usually explanation of negative meanings takes 2-3 > times more than of positive. It provides that a player who is trying to execute obligation of full disclosing of HUM methods will take at least tens minutes. (Anybody remember T. Reese's crypto-system he described - as joke - years ago? Is it > possible to explain it at the table at all?:)) That's why - HUMs may be used only in such kind of bridge where these 10-20 minutes will not decisive factor. > 2. There are several places in the Laws where there is underlined that formal warning (doing) is not enough: alert, skip etc. One should convince himself that opponents noticed his warning. The same problem is in case of "full disclosing": it is > not made for opponents' hearing only, it should provide to their understanding. One should win by the best way (method) - and not by not-being-understood. I'd like to underlined that it is not problem of opponent's level: HUM's users spend even > not hours - weeks and months - for learning them by heart, for analizing and training. Only after that they use these methods. And what - do you really think that after your full explanation high-level > opponent in several minutes will understand at least your main ideas? If so - why did YOU spend these months? > So - usage of HUM methods provides to unfairness every time when opponents have no possibility to understand - at the table, in the moment when this usage is happened - the whole spectrum in meanings and conclusions. They do have rights for home > preparation. > That's why I think that WBF decisions in this matter is quite good. But they can > be improved. My suggestions: > 1. In addition, WBF delegates to SO authority to allow HUM methods in matches > (20 boards or more). > 2. You remember my position on the Legend, don't you?:) There were said in the > Legend that if four players at the table take their decision and all of them know their rights - this decision is final. So - even in contest where HUM methods are forbidden if all players at the table agree - both sides or one side may use HUM. > > Vitold P.S. Not only remember "Classic Bridge" - I guess it is necessary part of modern bridge:) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 08:27:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74MR3o00398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:27:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e74MQvt00394 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:26:58 +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 SAA28787 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA15026 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:26:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008042226.SAA15026@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Why no HUMs? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Vitold > Sorry in advance - but the post will be rather long: the theme is > extremely important. Thanks, Vitold. Very nicely said. > P.S. Not only remember "Classic Bridge" - I guess it is necessary > part of modern bridge:) There's a subtlety in the above. Vitold probably remembers "classic bridge," which might be defined as bridge played during an era of historical significance or the style of play that was popular then. In the context of the original post, "Classic Bridge" (note capital letters) probably referred to the ACBL's attempt to introduce events allowing very limited conventions and no alerts. The attempt died almost as soon as it was born. (I think the first session -- at a Nationals, no less -- had about two tables show up.) Possible explanations include lack of publicity, bad choices of allowed conventions, or simply that players don't want a game where conventions are so severely limited. What most players seem to want is "All the conventions I play are allowed, and no other ones are." (Yes, I'm being facetious.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 09:08:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e74N8oa00440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:08:50 +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 e74N8it00435 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:08:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA31799; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:05:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200008042305.QAA31799@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Why no HUMs? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:26:53 PDT." <200008042226.SAA15026@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:05:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > In the context of the original post, "Classic Bridge" (note capital > letters) probably referred to the ACBL's attempt to introduce events > allowing very limited conventions and no alerts. The attempt died > almost as soon as it was born. (I think the first session -- at a > Nationals, no less -- had about two tables show up.) Possible > explanations include lack of publicity, bad choices of allowed > conventions, or simply that players don't want a game where conventions > are so severely limited. Or that the kind of players who would attend a National don't want a game where conventions are so severely limited. I suspect that the Classic Card would have appealed mostly to less-serious players, but the less-serious players who frequent the clubs in Kansas and Florida and all over the country are, I suspect, a lot less likely to take a week off to play bridge in San Francisco than the more serious players are. I think the ACBL made a big marketing mistake when they tried to introduce it at a National; it might have gained a following if they had started it at the club or sectional level. Not that *I* ever would have played in such an event, but there might have been a fair number of players who might have tried it and liked it if it had been introduced at their local sectional. Maybe. But I'm just guessing. -- 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 Aug 5 10:24:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e750Nxx00494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 10:23:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e750Not00485 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 10:23:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.112] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Krkf-000O1f-00; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:23:46 +0100 Message-ID: <003701bffe73$6aabc780$705408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Stevenson" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Question Time Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 00:00:59 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > >Instead, Kaplan asked a series of leading questions which amicably elicited > >the information on the auction his partner needed. His LHO, RHO and CHO > >all smiled. > > > >I support Kaplan's view that it is both lawful and ethical to ask a series > >of leading questions about the opponents' bidding system (provided that you > >are not giving UI about your own hand). If you suspect that they have had > >a bidding misunderstanding, and the object is to induce them to give MI > >and/or UI, then IMHO that is no more unethical than penalising an opposing > >revoke. > +=+ The ruling of the WBF Laws Committee reads as follows: "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the information in the reply." +=+ > also, whilst quoting the WBFLC let me include the following, to which I think ton was making a reference: " In respect of Law 25B the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn. " ~ 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 Aug 5 10:24:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e750O1H00495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 10:24:01 +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 e750Nqt00486 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 10:23:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.112] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Krkh-000O1f-00; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:23:48 +0100 Message-ID: <003801bffe73$6be30f00$705408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <000001bffd43$92238220$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:22:17 +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 ; Bridge Laws Cc: Max Bavin Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > is it possible to > deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass card > when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? > +=+ I am having a slight difficulty here. Exactly what is the information that we are asked to agree the player has conveyed? If it is plain that he was not thinking of passing, I am not clear what the partner may learn from the accidental removal of the pass card from the box. +=+ > > To David: we have a better argument for not > allowing the pass to be removed by a > preempt in your example. In Lille or Bermuda > or both we decided that a deliberate change > of a call is not allowed when it is based on > information coming from the other players. > Grattan will have the right sentence somewhere. > Another small victory so. > +=+ I have quoted the decision in a parallel message. In the meantime I suggest that in a WBF tournament there would be no call to be changed. Without screens under WBF regulations, for the call to be made the bidding card must be pulled out of the box 'with apparent intent'. My understanding is that there was no apparent intent in the case quoted. As to the generality of the matter there is no recorded WBFLC position on the principle involved here and in my eyes any opinions we express do not bear the imprint of that body. ~ 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 Aug 5 11:42:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e751fUM00573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e751fKt00560 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Ksxd-00011B-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:41:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:22:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup 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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article com>, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com writes >>> One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone >>> somewhere that could be where they live. >> >> >> David, could you decipher this lively metaphore for non-native >>speakers whose English can by no means called flawless (like me)? >> >> >In England doing something "until the cows come home" means doing it >forever. The references to where they could live are, I think >references to the recent ungentlemanly conduct regarding quite where >"around here" *is*. This doubt as to the precise location of Upton, >Cheshire is entirely understandable as about the only way to get to >Upton is by ox-drawn cart, and that only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Indeed. I must try that some Tuesday or Thursday. By the way, why would I want to visit a perfectly boring suburb of Chester about ten miles from my home? -- 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 Sat Aug 5 11:42:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e751fZg00576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e751fLt00562 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:22 +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 13Ksxd-000PaH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:41:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:42:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Multi References: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona> <011e01bffe42$c3985420$613a1dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <011e01bffe42$c3985420$613a1dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > >"David Stevenson" wrote: >> If you go to >> >> http://blakjak.com/wbf_cnbk.htm >> >> you will find a description of the Multi taken from the Conventions >> Booklet: downloadable copies in Word and text of the whole booklet: >> comments by Grattan. > > >The convention I know as "Multi 2D" is not >contained in the following description: > >---- snip ---- >MULTI 2 >An opening 2 shows one of three types > >Weak two in a major suit >A strong balanced hand of a defined range >Strong three-suited hand >---- snap ---- > >What about strong twos in a minor? I must say that when I finally got everything together it seems to me that the WBF has got it wrong. OK, maybe they haven't, but it looks that way to me. The Conventions Booklet is for the purpose [it says so] of making it easier to fill out CCs: if you play something *exactly* as in the CB then you need only name it. Thus you can put Multi down without further ado and people will know that you play it as per the CB, ie no strong twos in a minor, and not a Multi 2C. Then they use it to make the Multi not Brown Sticker. Well, as I have said to Grattan [no reply received yet], the way it reads to me is that if you play Multi 2D with Acol Minor Twos, it is Brown Sticker, because it is not as the CB. If you play Multi 2C anyway it is Brown Sticker, since there is no way that a Multi 2C could conform to the CB. Why, oh why, do the WBF not just put the definition of Multi in their System regs? -- 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 Sat Aug 5 11:42:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e751feM00580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e751fUt00574 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:31 +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 13Ksxl-000PaF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:41:23 +0000 Message-ID: <84e+fIAvB2i5EwId@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:31:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <200008041630.MAA14559@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200008041630.MAA14559@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> The real question that this poses is this : can the alert >> procedure be any different depending on whether or not some >> previous bid has been explained or not ? > >I agree with Herman. BLML ought to be able to answer the above. Why? Alerting regs are based on what the SO believes to be correct, and differ around the world. Why should we be able to make a general statement? >This thread convinces me that alert regulations and actual practice >differ so widely in different areas that we probably have little useful >to say on whether a particular call needs an alert or not. It is still >interesting to compare practices around the world. Sure. >> I feel that any previous explanation or absence thereof does >> not affect the alertability of 4Di. > >I agree with this. Giving or not giving an explanation may mitigate >_damage_ from failure to alert, but I don't think it changes the >_requirement_ to alert or not. > >The question still remains which calls need to be alerted. Herman's >example of completing a transfer is a good example. That is generally >not alertable in North America, but apparently it is alertable in >Belgium, if I understand Herman correctly. (If not in Belgium, it >probably is alertable somewhere in the world.) Either way, I don't >think it matters whether the transfer bid itself was explained or >not; the completion is or is not alertable according to regulation. > >I'm curious about another example. Consider the uncontested auction >1H-3C!-3H-, 3C being alerted. > >Case 1: 3C was an artificial limit raise of hearts; 3H is a signoff. >Case 2: 3C was an artificial game force; 3H shows good hearts and of >course is forcing. > >Is 3H alertable in either of the above auctions? I'm fairly sure >neither case would be alertable in North America, although given our >alert rules, nobody can be certain. What about Belgium, France, and >England? I suspect at least one has to be alerted in England because >one is forcing and the other isn't. No, neither is alertable. You alert something in England if it is forcing when oppos would not expect, or vice versa. In both cases the forcing nature of 3H is as one would expect it. >> From: David Stevenson >> Is 1D X P 1H >> alertable in normal standard beginner bridge? Can it not be a three >> card suit in a 3=3=4=3 hand? That is what I teach my beginners! > >Unlike the above, the 3H bid in the orginal auction was a _free bid_, >being made over 2S. It was also two levels higher. I suppose 3H could >be bid on a three-card suit, but it strikes me as wildly unlikely, >especially if a responsive double was available. I *really* do not believe that whether you alert 4D should depend on whether you play responsive doubles. > Takeout doubler has >guaranteed four hearts in the actual auction but even playing normal >takeout doubles quite likely has four, especially after the spade >raise. Thus while the set of hands that would bid 3H is no doubt >larger in the actual case than with normal agreements, I don't think it >is very much larger. > >> >But the initial question was not that ; it was >> >"does one have to alert a bid whose meaning comes from pure bridge logic, >> >if opponents aren't -by their own fault- in a position to apply it ? > >> The answer to that one depends on the sponsoring organisation. It is >> certainly No in the ACBL, the EBU and the WBU because the alerting regs >> are not written that way. > >I thought you were arguing 'yes', that the 4D bid needs an alert. Or >do you think the 4D bid that was made shows something other than what >is given by pure bridge logic? We haven't been told there was any >special agreement. Well, my memory is at fault then, since I thought we were told that 4D showed a suit and a heart fit. I believe that if 4D shows fit+suit an alert would be suitable. If it is purely natural, passable, then I do not see the need for an alert. > I would expect 4D to be passable if 3H was a >tactical bid on a three-card suit, and it would be astonishing if 4D is >not raisable. If there are agreements to the contrary, then I would >expect that the bid needs to be alerted almost anywhere. (But see >above about local regulations and practice.) > >Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the 4D bid shows 1) a useful >diamond suit, 2) strength to play at the four level, and 3) nothing >else special (the heart length already having been shown). Does it >need an alert? By bridge logic 4D will seldom be passed, since 4H is >game and 4D isn't, and the previous bidding has already revealed an >almost-certain 8-card heart fit. No, then I see no reason for an alert. but surely we were told it didn't? -- 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 Sat Aug 5 11:42:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e751fZO00577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e751fLt00561 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:41:23 +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 13Ksxd-000PaG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:41:15 +0000 Message-ID: <649$vMAjG2i5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:36:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> Now it may be obvious to you that I should assume they meant something >>quite different, and I should answer something quite different from what >>was written, but I don't swing that way. > > You should reconsider why you're the only person who misinterpretted >the original comment. Misinterpreted? I doubt it. By the way, have you polled every person who reads BLML? I don't think I misinterpreted anything. >>Of things written here and on >>two newsgroups, I believe about 25% to be anything between over- >>simplistic, very strange and downright stupid, and I see no reason why I >>should sort the wheat out fro the chaff. When someone asks a question >>or puts a point of view that I do not agree with, I say so, and to >>assume I mean something different from what I say I consider completely >>ridiculous. > > I'll help you a bit. I think you're back-peddling and this is all >chaff. Oh, don't talk such bilge. Someone made a comment, I answered it, and now you want to produce all sorts of rubbish because I actually answered the comment and not something else. OK, you go that way. Why should I care? It is not very helpful though. >> It is not up to me to decide whether whoever wrote >> >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals "because >> >> > they are >> >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. >>meant what they say, but I feel I am at liberty to disagree with it, >>which I do. > > I feel myself similarly relieved of the obligation to understand your >posts before responding and will continue to assert you said that encrypted >signals are inherently unfair. After all, it's not up to me to decide >whether you meant what you said. (sic) Good. Perhaps you will assume I mean what I say in future and not misrepresent me then. How nice. > You have misrepresented yourself. We are not all collectively idiots, >your personal opinion of me (whatever that may be) aside. Of course not everyone here is an idiot, and the couple who are prove it adequately when they open their mouths. -- 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 Sat Aug 5 15:42:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e755f5p00717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e755ewt00709 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:40:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22055 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2000 05:40:44 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 5 Aug 2000 05:40:44 -0000 Message-ID: <398BA916.3D907450@eduhi.at> Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 07:41:42 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B65D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." schrieb: > > > Is it possible to tell me why L21B does not apply to this situation? > So according to this approach the pass card gives information. Since the > player never intended to put out the pass card he never wanted to distribute > this information. More precise: he wanted to give other information. This > situation I dared to describe as causing (giving) misinformation. > But even if you use "information" in this wide sense (I do not agree with it, and I do not think it is the established practice), there is no infraction. L73E permits the *intentional* dissemination of "misinformation" of this kind; a fortiori the accidental cannot then be illegal. And where there has been no infraction, there can be no redress, not even under L21A. But I suggest another course: Why not apply the second part of L25B1 "If offender's LHO..." to L25A as well? To be sure, L25B is applicable only when L25A does not apply, but: IMO this refers only to the options of the "OS". The "If offender's LHO..." part contains an additional regulation for the very case we have in this discussion, only that it had been foreseen by the law-makers in the L25B situation but presumably not for the L25A situation. So extending the scope of this part to the whole of L25 seems about right. Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 15:48:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e755meP00730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:48:40 +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 e755mXt00726 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:48:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.198] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Kwou-0001dY-00; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 06:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bffea0$c7ad2960$c65908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 06:47:09 +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: Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > By the way, why would I want to visit a perfectly boring suburb of > Chester about ten miles from my home? > +=+ You might not, since in Upton-by-Chester you would still be at least as many miles again away from Upton, Wirral, where David and other good friends of mine live. ~ 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 Aug 5 16:49:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e756mdU00776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:48:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e756mVt00771 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:48:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.112] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Kxkw-0002HX-00; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:48:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001901bffea9$285a5500$705408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <649$vMAjG2i5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:14:43 +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 To: Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >>From: David Stevenson > > > I feel myself similarly relieved of the obligation to understand your > >posts before responding and will continue to assert you said that encrypted > >signals are inherently unfair. After all, it's not up to me to decide > >whether you meant what you said. (sic) > > Good. Perhaps you will assume I mean what I say in future and not > misrepresent me then. How nice. > > > You have misrepresented yourself. We are not all collectively idiots, > >your personal opinion of me (whatever that may be) aside. > > Of course not everyone here is an idiot, and the couple who are prove > it adequately when they open their mouths. > +=+ Rather than dissolve into an unseemly brawl could we now step back and look at what we have learnt from this thread? My inferences are that some players believe they ought to be allowed to use encrypted signals, attack anything that stops them, and will not be moved from their position; there are others who indicate their view that it is desirable to ban encrypted signals and who defend regulations that do so. One or two of us merely observe that the regulations are in place in some tournaments - WBF, English, and others - and are unlikely to be changed, so we may as well note the views expressed and get on with other matters. I would think we have possibly come to the end of useful things to say since much has been repetitious for a while now. ~ 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 Aug 5 16:49:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e756mix00780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:48:44 +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 e756mXt00772 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:48:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.112] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Kxky-0002HX-00; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:48:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01bffea9$2966e300$705408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona><011e01bffe42$c3985420$613a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Multi Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:45:30 +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: Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Multi > What about strong twos in a minor? > > I must say that when I finally got everything together it seems to me > that the WBF has got it wrong. > > OK, maybe they haven't, but it looks that way to me. > > The Conventions Booklet is for the purpose [it says so] of making it > easier to fill out CCs: if you play something *exactly* as in the CB > then you need only name it. Thus you can put Multi down without further > ado and people will know that you play it as per the CB, ie no strong > twos in a minor, and not a Multi 2C. > > Then they use it to make the Multi not Brown Sticker. Well, as I have > said to Grattan [no reply received yet], the way it reads to me is that > if you play Multi 2D with Acol Minor Twos, it is Brown Sticker, because > it is not as the CB. If you play Multi 2C anyway it is Brown Sticker, > since there is no way that a Multi 2C could conform to the CB. > > Why, oh why, do the WBF not just put the definition of Multi in their > System regs? > +=+ I have been in Devon enjoying breakfast on the terrace of a fine old house in the brilliant, warm sunshine. The definition that Kokish has placed in the CB gives an example of how a multi should be disclosed, but that example is not a definition of what a multi is. Taken without that example I believe the text in the CB describes what you may do with a multi 2D and fits with my statement. The range of strong bids is not restricted. The only change is that the Systems Policy 2000 now allows that you may do the same things, mutatis mutandis, with an opening 2C. Thus I think the confusion arises from a reading of the example disclosure as though it were to define the meanings of the bid; I think in the pre-Kokish texts the CB may have been written in that way but not now. The Systems Policy is the later document and regulates the use of multi; the purpose of the CB is to define meanings of conventions which, used as described, may simply be listed by name 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 Sat Aug 5 17:15:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e757FAc00816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:15:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e757F3t00812 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA29003 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:14:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: > It is not up to me to decide whether whoever wrote > >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals > > > "because >they are > >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. > meant what they say, but I feel I am at liberty to disagree with it, > which I do. Would I be right in inferring (I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your beliefs) that You personally believe that encrypted signals are fair but you think it would be reasonable for others to believe that they are unfair? I am having genuine problems understanding what it is you disagree with in my statement. In an attempt at clarity. I think it is ridiculous to call encrypted signals "unfair". I think it is ridiculous to ban something "fair" on the grounds that it is "unfair". Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 18:26:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e758Pjq00862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 18:25:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e758PZt00858 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 18:25:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.90.22] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13KzGs-00042d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 09:25:31 +0100 Message-ID: <004c01bffeb6$b0254a00$165a063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <002601bff6da$cfbdf760$1d5608c3@dodona> <011e01bffe42$c3985420$613a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Multi Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:25:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >> If you go to > >> > >> http://blakjak.com/wbf_cnbk.htm > >> > >> you will find a description of the Multi taken from the Conventions > >> Booklet: downloadable copies in Word and text of the whole booklet: > >> comments by Grattan. This is the 1990 Conventions Booklet. There is (I assume) a later one, because (as I understand it) the contents of the booklet are included in the WBF Convention Card editor program which I have been using to look at convention cards for Maastricht (but see below). There, these words appear: MULTI 2D(... weak 2M; or ... ) An artificial opening bid with several meanings. The ONLY weak type must be a weak-two in a major suit. Specify with one descriptive word in the NAME LINE before the word "weak" ... your STYLE for the weak 2M type: standard (i.e. 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 prefer a more descriptive adjective. Then replace the word "or" with the strong hand types, using semi-colons. It may be that the latest version of the Guide to Completion appears only as help text within the CCE program, in which case perhaps it should appear in text form somewhere. > Why, oh why, do the WBF not just put the definition of Multi in their > System regs? They do. The current WBF Systems Policy says this: 2.3 Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker': a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. Now, the words following "EXCEPTION" correspond more or less exactly to the description of MULTI in the WBF CCE help text. Of course, the correspondence is not exact, because the Systems Policy permits a multi 2C, while the only convention you may name without clarification on the CC is the multi 2D. I suggest that DWS update his invaluable web site with the current text of the guidance for completion of a convention card, not the 1990 text. If he can't do this because the current text exists only as a help file for the WBF CCE program, then I suggest the powers that be take steps to remedy this deplorable situation. (Of course, I could do it myself by converting the help file to text, but it's not my department.) 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 Sat Aug 5 19:20:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e759Jbn00899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:19:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp8.xs4all.nl (smtp8.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e759JQt00895 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from woek (dc2-isdn2116.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.156.68]) by smtp8.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA05308; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:19:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006001bffebe$29e9e920$2b9c6dc2@xs4all.nl> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: "BLML" , "Grattan Endicott" References: <649$vMAjG2i5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001901bffea9$285a5500$705408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:18:38 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Rather than dissolve into an unseemly brawl > could we now step back and look at what we have > learnt from this thread? My inferences are that > some players believe they ought to be allowed > to use encrypted signals, attack anything that > stops them, and will not be moved from their > position; there are others who indicate their > view that it is desirable to ban encrypted > signals and who defend regulations that do so. Whether or not, but there has to be a valid, objective reason for a prohibition. You tried to formula such a criterion, but you didn't answer Mike Dennis. > One or two of us merely observe that the > regulations are in place in some tournaments - > WBF, English, and others - and are unlikely to > be changed, so we may as well note the views > expressed and get on with other matters. I understand from this that there are no WBF-rules on encrypted signalling? Kees van der Weijden woek@xs4all.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 Sat Aug 5 19:27:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e759Qws00916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:26:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e759Qkt00912 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:26:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2076 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2000 09:24:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.0.185) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 5 Aug 2000 09:24:40 -0000 Message-ID: <398BDE1B.BB48DA3C@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 12:27:56 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Dehn CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <008901bffaf4$4e1ab2c0$26033dd4@default> <003d01bffc7d$34dd67a0$1459073e@D457300> <021d01bffca6$bfce4400$17291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I didn't understand that David (St.) told us that the misplacement of the curtain card was deliberately and ....criminal. But I am sure that if I'd find it I should check and inquire that event stronger than Watergate......... If Manchester did it and hurshed like a black horse ..... I think David ( Burn this time) was too polite and the pair or person responsible would be forbidden to play for a millennium at least....... Dany Thomas Dehn wrote: > "David Burn" 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 > > > There may be some flaw in my > > understanding of the above narrative. If > > I have it right, a player whose partnership > > failed in an abortive slam > > subsequently fouled the board after her opponents had left the table, > > by (in effect) interchanging the East and West curtain cards. (Your > > account says that she replaced the West card in the East slot, but > > does not say what happened to the East card, so this may be an error - > > there may have been two curtain cards in the East slot by the time the > > board arrived at the other Yellow table.) > > > > I observe that Manchester are credited with having won the President's > > Cup. All I can say is that had I been directing the event, their > > participation in it would have ceased from the moment that the above > > incident came to light. > > This seems way too harsh. > I can understand a PP for > - fouling the board > and > - illegally looking at curtain cards > But as long as evidence does not strongly > support the assumption that N fouled the > board deliberately, I see no reason for > the draconic penalty David Burn has suggested. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 20:11:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75ABOh00949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Aug 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 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 e75ABGt00945 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 20:11:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7520 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2000 10:09:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.0.185) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 5 Aug 2000 10:09:16 -0000 Message-ID: <398BE88F.BE0CF0FE@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:12:32 +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: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] President's Cup References: <200008041415.KAA14432@cfa183.harvard.edu> <002b01bffe25$da333fa0$92bd01d5@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We have a real and human problem - the curiosity is the issue which lead the humankind's progress !!!!! It is practically very difficult to stop a player to try to see all 4 hands after a difficult and unsuccessful play........ Some years ago , when I was asked to rebuild a club - directing almost every day - I tried to uproot this "bad habit/manner" . I published a brief of the most important things to do or to forbid - they were on a one page paper on the tables . Every time I saw anyone touching the someone's else cards - or the curtain card - after the board played I put a PP ; at the very first times I claimed that I decided to rub off the PP when I published the scores - 5 minutes after the game was over (having only 15-16 tables...) but the second time it happened to the same person, didn't change it. It took me about 12-14 sessions and this bad manner almost disappeared ! But... one evening , playing the club teams championship I saw someone pulling out the curtain card from the opponent's pocket. I opened my claws and jumped there , asking the player to come aside : I explained him , showing the very sharp claws that I will tell all the players I'll stop to direct that tournament because he put me in a position impossible to go on.... Either me or him is not a gentleman . He understood what will happen and begged me not to "publish" that ...until today he thanks me when playing in national events ; I was told that he never touched anymore any cards or curtain.... I tried to uproot that bad manner in an educational way but very stubborn ..... hope it worked. And back to the "penalty" - we have still different opinions : As I wrote already I sent the "deliberate criminal" to rest for a millennium while D.B. the gentleman thinks a decade is enough..... Dany David Burn wrote: > Steve wrote: > > > > >From: "David Burn" > > > The penalty isn't for putting back the curtain cards wrongly. The > > > penalty is for deliberately fouling a board on which your side has > > > just obtained a poor result, with a view to gaining an unfair > > > advantage thereby. > > > > My first instinct is to look at L72B1 in these sorts of situations. > In > > this case, I'm wondering whether the TD could let the board be > played > > at the other table. Sure, East and West know each other's hands, > but > > it looks as though they will be passing throughout and defending > > irrelevantly anyway. And if they do something odd, or on a > different > > deal where the knowledge matters, the TD can then give an _assigned_ > > adjusted score. > > What the TD did was perfectly sensible - he awarded a slam swing > against the offending side, using Law 72 for the purpose. I don't have > a problem with that (though I suppose he could have let North-South > bid their hands lest they should duplicate the ineptitude of their > opponents, but this would seem to me to create an unnecessary jeopardy > for what was after all the non-offending side). > > > Perhaps I'm too aware of EK's dictum, "If you don't like the result > > of one law, find a different law." But isn't there some way L72B1 > > can help out here? Or is there any other "could have known" law > > one could apply? > > One can apply "could have known" laws until the cows could have gone > somewhere that could be where they live. If the TD believed, as he > apparently did believe with good reason, that the infraction was > inadvertent, then the course he followed was a wise and just course. > But on the evidence first presented, it seemed to me that there was at > least a strong presumption that the infraction was not inadvertent, in > which case there was a great deal more that needed to be done. My > concern is that, in too many cases of this kind, we shelter behind > "could have known" for fear of calling a cheat a cheat. > > 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 Sun Aug 6 00:31:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75ETX801099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 00:29:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e75ETTt01095 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 00:29:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma212458 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 00:29:08 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-224-207.tmns.net.au ([203.54.224.207]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Configurable-MailRouter V2.9 17/1846293); 06 Aug 2000 00:29:08 Message-ID: <001001bfff4d$97e20540$cfe036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:24:48 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kees van der Weijden wrote: >I understand from this that there are no WBF-rules >on encrypted signalling? To quote from http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/b7/wbfsystemspolicy/definitions.asp "WBF SYSTEMS POLICY 2000 (...amended January 2000) Section 2.3 Brown Sticker conventions ..... Section 2.4 Encrypted Signals Additional to the restrictions on bidding methods and conventions above, players may not use signalling methods by which the message or messages conveyed by the signals are hidden from declarer because of some key available only to the defenders (... encrypted signals are not allowed)." 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 Sun Aug 6 01:16:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75FG7C01131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:16:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe21.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e75FG0t01127 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88015 invoked by uid 65534); 5 Aug 2000 15:15:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000805151547.88014.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.190] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <649$vMAjG2i5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001901bffea9$285a5500$705408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 10:17:20 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions | | Grattan Endicott | To: | Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:36 AM | Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions | | | > Todd Zimnoch wrote: | > >>From: David Stevenson | +=+ Rather than dissolve into an unseemly brawl | could we now step back and look at what we have | learnt from this thread? My inferences are that | some players believe they ought to be allowed | to use encrypted signals, attack anything that | stops them, and will not be moved from their | position; there are others who indicate their | view that it is desirable to ban encrypted | signals and who defend regulations that do so. | One or two of us merely observe that the | regulations are in place in some tournaments - | WBF, English, and others - and are unlikely to | be changed, so we may as well note the views | expressed and get on with other matters. | I would think we have possibly come to | the end of useful things to say since much | has been repetitious for a while now. | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I think that much talk about fairness, permitting, disallowing encrypted signaling methods is a bit misdirected. To some extent, all signaling is at some point encrypted. And, there are at least two aspects of signaling that come within the reach of propriety and that are probably an important point of discussion. One is the information distinguishing whether partner is creating [a] a true signal [b] a deceptive signal [c] a random card. The information I speak of coming from variation of manner. The other is the information that partner probably reads a card [a] as a true signal [b] a deceptive signal [c] a random card.[d] missed seeing the card. Again, the information I speak of coming from variation of manner. This information is almost if not more valuable than the message of signal itself, if it is a content filled message. What does this have to do with banning, unfairness, etc?? As mentioned, in essence all signaling is a form of encryption. Once getting past this concept it is realized that encryption entails degrees. Right side up carding is less encrypted because it is normal to think that way; is less so than upside down, odd-even, and so on. When playing a card, because of variation it becomes evident to others that the human brain is spending its efforts to get the intended signal correct, or to understand the message received. When it comes to bridge this communication is outside the scope of what is authorized. Another side is the issue of the key for declarer [disclosure]. The problem lies not when the key rests in the cards [Smith echo, vinji, etc] or in the AI but if the key is concealed [Sion pencil signals]. Presuming that the method of communication is available to declarer the fairness of the method lies in its execution. Defenders that vary their tempo in order to both signal and not use more than their share of the allotted time create UI. The thrust here is that the method on its merits can be fair, its execution may be anything but fair. I believe that I am suggesting that the thrust of regulation of permitted methods can effectively be done by setting a standard for execution and provide some minimum method that must be permitted for those who have difficulty in executing even the minimum. Such an approach would be self regulating amongst players causing them to find their level or be regulated to the standard level. The object should be to employ fair methods in a fair way. It is not enough to employ a fair method, it needs to be employed in a fair way. The pivot point needs to be that the method is available to declarer, not that the opponent must be capable of understanding its intricacies or derive inferences from it; as that is a matter of skill. The operating premise should be that signaling is allowed under fair conditions. For players to employ a complex method the test ought not be declarer 's skill or willingness to play against it that determines its fairness but the ability of the defenders to employ it fairly. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 01:59:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75Fx9I01156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:59:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e75Fx5t01152 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:59:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa400338 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:55:09 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-253.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.253]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Missionary-MailRouter V2.9 1/41098); 06 Aug 2000 01:55:08 Message-ID: <002c01bfff59$9b801d20$fdd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Double Dutch? Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:36:06 +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 Section 5 of WBF SYSTEMS POLICY 2000 says: "The front right part of the Convention Card must include: ...... iii) All conventional defensive bids used over natural openings of one of a suit (making sure that all two suited intervention is detailed precisely; the best way to do this is to write: 'Two Suiters' and include a reference number to an early Supplementary Sheet entry, which will provide the particulars). If a pair uses any bid which should have been listed here, but which has been left out, and their opponents do not get to their best contract, there will be a strong presumption that the opponents have been damaged by not being able to prepare a defence. The offending pair may also be liable to incur a procedural penalty. ..................... It is strongly emphasised, and all contestants must note, that the policy stated above will be rigorously applied." END OF QUOTE I think that the above approach is a bit mean. A hypothetical example illustrates my concern: ;) A Dutch pair in the 2000 Olympiad round robin, aiming for a double after their recent BLML "rules enforcement" in Turkey :) , gets a bad score after their opponents use a Michaels Cue Bid (or an Unusual 2NT if you prefer). Their opponents have not included Michaels (nor Unusual 2NT for minors) on the front right of their CC (very few pairs have done so for Maastricht). So the "strong presumption" comes into effect. Not too much effect I hope? ;) The Dutch case this time is that the bidding went 1S - (2S) - X - (3C) correctable, which was passed out. The Dutch defence was "takeout doubles in both seats". With a rotten 2551 hand, the 2S bidder temporarily psyched a pass of 3C, and neither Dutch player could double as both held long clubs. As the Dutch pair themselves play Ghestem in which exact suits are known, they were not prepared.... ;) Opener had AKxxx, AQx, A, K109x and responder had xx, Kxx, xxx, AQJ8x. Sorry to make an unfunny (and offensive to Holland) joke about this - my point is that the above rule, which applies at Maastricht, is not well-written and is also not well-known. I hope it will not be "rigorously applied" in Maastricht. The writer of the above rule seems to have ignored that there is a nice section on the LHS of the WBF CC for everyday Michaels and 2NT usages. To write a rule which requires pairs to clutter up the RHS of the CC unnecessarily seems to me to be ill-advised. Good luck in the Open Olympiad to the two current BLML subscribers who will be playing for their countries: David Burn and Peter Newman (have I missed anyone?) 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 Sun Aug 6 04:39:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75Ic5K01302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 04:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f158.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.158]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e75Ibxt01298 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 04:38:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:37:51 -0700 Received: from 172.137.2.84 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.137.2.84] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 11:37:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2000 18:37:51.0959 (UTC) FILETIME=[4311BE70:01BFFF0C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >+=+ Rather than dissolve into an unseemly brawl >could we now step back and look at what we have >learnt from this thread? My inferences are that >some players believe they ought to be allowed >to use encrypted signals, attack anything that >stops them, and will not be moved from their >position; there are others who indicate their >view that it is desirable to ban encrypted >signals and who defend regulations that do so. >One or two of us merely observe that the >regulations are in place in some tournaments - >WBF, English, and others - and are unlikely to >be changed, so we may as well note the views >expressed and get on with other matters. > I would think we have possibly come to >the end of useful things to say since much >has been repetitious for a while now. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ By far not. The infinitely unaccountable regulators have not expressed what their wisdom was in placing the ban. We can argue about what good and bad reasons may exist without ever knowing which were used. Also, no one has yet mentioned the difficulties in administering games with HUMs. The TD is disadvantaged when he must rule on UI during the auction when he is unfamiliar with the bidding system employed. Though has been implied, this disadvantage was passed on to the HUM-playing contestant. For ACBL'ers -- think management would consider a HUM night in place of midnight swiss at an NABC? -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 Sun Aug 6 05:11:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75JBSH01349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 05:11:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e75JBIt01345 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 05:11:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054mdr.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.187]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA04024 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 15:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000805151110.01463694@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 15:11:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <001901bffea9$285a5500$705408c3@dodona> References: <649$vMAjG2i5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:14 AM 8/5/2000 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Rather than dissolve into an unseemly brawl >could we now step back and look at what we have >learnt from this thread? My inferences are that >some players believe they ought to be allowed >to use encrypted signals, attack anything that >stops them, and will not be moved from their >position; there are others who indicate their >view that it is desirable to ban encrypted >signals and who defend regulations that do so. >One or two of us merely observe that the >regulations are in place in some tournaments - >WBF, English, and others - and are unlikely to >be changed, so we may as well note the views >expressed and get on with other matters. > I would think we have possibly come to >the end of useful things to say since much >has been repetitious for a while now. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The appropriate way to signal your disinterest in a thread is to stop participating, rather than to disparage the contributions of others. If you are bored with this thread, or for any other reason feel disinclined to make any substantive defense of your position, then of course it is reasonable for you to bow out. But I trust that nobody else will regard your announcement that this discussion is concluded with the same seriousness that you do. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 05:41:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75JfLr01381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 05:41:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e75JfFt01377 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 05:41:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp204-168.worldonline.nl [195.241.204.168]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 74C0836B1A; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 21:42:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <010b01bfff15$63e1c600$a8ccf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: Subject: [BLML] A bidding box improvement ? [was : L25A] Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 21:43:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A couple of days ago, David Burn wrote: >It occurs to me that the following is at present permitted under the >Laws: I have a marginal pre-empt, but decide to pass. I see LHO reach >into his box to open the bidding, perhaps with a strong club. Now, of >course, I wish I had opened. What do I do? I immediately apologise for >having pulled out the pass card instead of the stop card, and open my >pre-empt after all. > >To save people some time, I will point out here that the official >response to this anomaly is as follows: the Laws are not designed to >stop people cheating if they are determined to do so. If I want to do >this I can go ahead, but the incident will be noted and repetition of >it will lead to my being cursed by bell, book and candle. This is >eyewash, but it's a popular and comforting fiction. Maybe there is another way out. If a player tables a green card, but asserts to have the right to replace it by a 1S bid under L25A, because he did intend to take the 1S card out of his bidding box in the first place, we merely smile, say : "Well, you did pick a card from the front section of your bidding box, whereas 1S is in the rear section", and apply L25B. Now, there are three types of cards in the bidding box: - bids (1S through 7NT) - other calls (pass, double and redouble) - informational cards (stop and alert) but a bidding box has only two sections to store them in. Why not add a further section for the informational cards ? This might reduce the number of mistakes, and would remove the ambivalence from the situation described by David Burn. Mind you, I do oppose the habit of some players to leave the stop and alert cards back up on the table and to turn them over whenever they need them. 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 Sun Aug 6 05:49:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75JmoH01394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 05:48:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e75Jmit01390 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 05:48:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-31.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.31]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 550BD36BBB; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 21:48:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 21:39:58 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> is it possible to >> deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass card >> when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? >> >+=+ I am having a slight difficulty here. Exactly >what is the information that we are asked to >agree the player has conveyed? If it is plain that >he was not thinking of passing, I am not clear >what the partner may learn from the accidental >removal of the pass card from the box. +=+ This discussion leads nowhere. If we can't agree on the fact that a pass card carries information and that somebody showing a pass card when he wanted to show something else gives misinformation I give up. But when I try to find 'Hoogkeppel' tomorrow (to attend a bridgematch between Denmark and the Netherlands being played there) and some sign on the road leads me in the wrong direction I will tell the people (when I ever get there) that I was misinformed about the road to follow, and I am sure they will understand that (though they might not believe me). And for Grattan: partner will be reaffirmed in the clumsyness of his mate, and that is his part of it, but he should not use the information from the withdrawn call of his RHO either. >> >> To David: we have a better argument for not >> allowing the pass to be removed by a >> preempt in your example. In Lille or Bermuda >> or both we decided that a deliberate change >> of a call is not allowed when it is based on >> information coming from the other players. >> Grattan will have the right sentence somewhere. >> Another small victory so. >> >+=+ I have quoted the decision in a parallel >message. In the meantime I suggest that in >a WBF tournament there would be no call to >be changed. Without screens under WBF >regulations, for the call to be made the >bidding card must be pulled out of the box >'with apparent intent'. This certainly is a suggestion to consider, though I am quite sure that "with apparent intent' is not meant to distinguish between 25A and 25B but to distinguish between (25A + 25B) and rearranging the bidding box or trying to find the lost ace of spades between the bidding cards or removing some beer from the bidding cards. If we follow your suggestion we will hardly ever know whether a call is made or not and LHO's call might be a call out of rotation if his RHO convinces the TD he hadn't the intention to show what was shown. My understanding is >that there was no apparent intent in the >case quoted. As to the generality of the >matter there is no recorded WBFLC >position on the principle involved here and >in my eyes any opinions we express do not >bear the imprint of that body. I know Grattan, I know. 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 Sun Aug 6 08:16:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75MFwx01487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:15:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e75MFqt01483 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:15:53 +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 NNZASS82; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:15:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200008042305.QAA31799@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Fri, 04 Aug 2000 18:26:53 PDT." <200008042226.SAA15026@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:18:18 -0500 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Steve Willner wrote: > >> In the context of the original post, "Classic Bridge" (note capital >> letters) probably referred to the ACBL's attempt to introduce events >> allowing very limited conventions and no alerts. The attempt died >> almost as soon as it was born. (I think the first session -- at a >> Nationals, no less -- had about two tables show up.) Possible >> explanations include lack of publicity, bad choices of allowed >> conventions, or simply that players don't want a game where conventions >> are so severely limited. > >Or that the kind of players who would attend a National don't want a >game where conventions are so severely limited. I suspect that the >Classic Card would have appealed mostly to less-serious players, but >the less-serious players who frequent the clubs in Kansas and Florida >and all over the country are, I suspect, a lot less likely to take a >week off to play bridge in San Francisco than the more serious players >are. I think the ACBL made a big marketing mistake when they tried to >introduce it at a National; it might have gained a following if they >had started it at the club or sectional level. Not that *I* ever >would have played in such an event, but there might have been a fair >number of players who might have tried it and liked it if it had been >introduced at their local sectional. Maybe. But I'm just guessing. > > -- Adam > Goren (1957) was, after all, a pretty complicated system in itself. The ACBL keeps thinking there are a bunch of old-time Goren players to be enticed into the League. There are almost no young casual bridge players anymore. TV took care of that by killing bridge as family entertainment. The players at sectionals around this part of the world (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kentucky) play a huge variety of conventions. (Lots of us play just as badly as many of the casual players of forty years ago, but we take it seriously.) Maybe the largest issue in a new partnership around here (Boone County, Missouri) is whether to play 1430 replies to RKC Blackwood. I suspect Multi would be a popular choice here, if it were allowed by our masters in Memphis. REH 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 Sun Aug 6 08:20:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75MKOp01500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:20:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e75MKHt01496 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:20:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25060 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 18:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <010b01bfff15$63e1c600$a8ccf1c3@default> References: <010b01bfff15$63e1c600$a8ccf1c3@default> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 18:15:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] A bidding box improvement ? [was : L25A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Jac Fuchs" wrote: >but a bidding box has only two sections to store them in. Why not add a >further section for the informational cards ? This might reduce the number >of mistakes, and would remove the ambivalence from the situation described >by David Burn. I've seen one such box advertised: the Trio, I think it's called. Two upright sections, one for bids, one for other calls. A flat section between them, on which go the informational cards. I think I saw it in Baron-Barclay's catalog (http://www.baronbarclay.com). >Mind you, I do oppose the habit of some players to leave the stop and alert >cards back up on the table and to turn them over whenever they need them Why, pray tell? :-) 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/AwUBOYyS972UW3au93vOEQL24wCgimhx5tMX3rN73vHQ/HGmmjy8NRoAn3yC x82rfylB8Vgut8tYIeLQM3qO =Gjh0 -----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 Aug 6 08:42:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e75MgDL01519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:42:13 +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 e75Mg6t01515 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:42:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.176] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LCdm-000GGI-00; Sat, 5 Aug 2000 23:42:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bfff2e$609020a0$b05408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <649$vMAjG2i5Ewpy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.1.32.20000805151110.01463694@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 21:31:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > > The appropriate way to signal your disinterest in a thread is to stop > participating, rather than to disparage the contributions of others. If you > are bored with this thread, or for any other reason feel disinclined to > make any substantive defense of your position, then of course it is > reasonable for you to bow out. But I trust that nobody else will regard > your announcement that this discussion is concluded with the same > seriousness that you do. > +=+ What I am disinterested in is the tendency of a couple of contributors to drift into a verbal wrangle and insults. As to 'defense' of a position, I have no position to defend. I have merely reported the decisions of others and my view of what may have been in part the basis of their decisions. To modify my statement slightly: the position I do have is that what are defined as 'encrypted signals' (as a term of the art) are prohibited in the WBF CoC's for Maastricht. The appeals committee may find itself required to settle an issue, so we will need to be clear in our minds what it is that is prohibited. ~ 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 Aug 6 10:28:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e760Rt701589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:27:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e760Rnt01585 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:27:50 +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 13LEI0-000Kvp-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:27:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 01:26:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Misinformation in risley MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S B 14 6 Pairs 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 J943 P 2H#2 P 2N QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N 852 QT973 AP K2 A9763 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG A73 #2 Negative AKJ4 #3 Transfer QJT AKQ South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely were playing transfers. North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he wants to play there. It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. West led the H5 against 3NT and South made ten tricks: she said she would have found a different lead if she had know 3H was a transfer. So, how did the redoubtable Malcolm Lunn rule? -- 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 Sun Aug 6 16:34:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e766UgU01769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 16:30:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e766Uct01765 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 16:30:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.46.137]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000806063402.MJOW2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:34:02 +1200 Message-ID: <00cb01bfff6f$6da759c0$892e37d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com><002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20000804083616.00ae7880@sercit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:27:40 +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 Newman" > One other neat idea that was around a few years back in Australia was the > concept of "Protected Pairs". Any pair with a player with less than X > masterpoints (or perhaps it was average of the pair, I can't recall > exactly) was allowed to claim "Protected Pair" status and opponents weren't > allowed to play a HUM against them. Of course, many of the protected pairs > didn't care what their opponents played and everyone got on with the game. Protected Pair Status was in place in the NOT in Canberra in January this year. > > Until the top level of the game allows innovation then I don't believe > things will ever improve. Here Here. The best arguement that I have heard is this: If they play/invent good methods then we will all benefit when we adopt the methods and if the play/invent poor methods then we will benefit by getting good scores off them. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 18:12:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7687cu01825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:07:38 +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 e7687St01820 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:07:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LLSt-000Lz5-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 09:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bfff7d$5b61e380$0f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "David Burn" , "ton kooijman" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 08:42:05 +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: Grattan Endicott ; David Burn ; Bridge Laws Cc: Max Bavin Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > This discussion leads nowhere. If we can't agree on the fact that a pass > card carries information and that somebody showing a pass card when he > wanted to show something else gives misinformation I give up. > +=+ I must say, ton, that I am hesitant to support your view of the way the law and regulations apply to the facts we have been given. My first concern is to establish whether the call has been made (under WBF regulations, which I believe the English regulations copy as nearly as no matter). It appears to me that the green card was pulled from the box without apparent intent to do so. I am not sure from the narrative what happened next. Did the player realize promptly that he had done something unintentional, and say so, without placing the card on the tray? If he did I would say that no call has been made and there is no call for him to change. By what action has the player justified the Director in finding that the call has been made? And if the call has been made, does it not stand as a part of the legal auction so that any Law 25 change is a change of a legal call in the auction, with no involvement of misinformation but subject to the provisions of Law 25? But I am also unable to see exactly what information he has conveyed to any other player at the table. The player pulled the green card from the box inadvertently or by accident? What kind of information can that give to any other player at the table? - that he is careless perhaps, or clumsy, but it says nothing about the auction or the cards in his hand. I am really at a loss to know *what* information it is suggested this mishap has conveyed to anyone at the table, whether misinformation to the opponents or UI to his partner. ~ 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 Aug 6 18:21:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e768Ii101846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:18:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e768IYt01842 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:18:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-110.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.110]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05146 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:18:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398AA9DC.F4A3629B@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 13:32:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? References: <002701bffdd4$6a6289c0$25d736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > Herman de Wael wrote in the parent thread called > Encrypted Siganlling: Brown Sticker Conventions: > >..... Do proponents of HUMs claim systemic benefits? > > Yes. And IMO they are 100.000% correct. Note that I am not a > proponent of HUMs but have played against them an awful lot. > > >Can you really be certain that the decline in the playing > >of HUMs is only due to the loss of seating rights and not > >also in some degree to the fact that opponents are more > >able to deal with them than was the case in (Seattle, was > >it - for the Olympiad ?) ? > > Having been a playing member of the Australian team whose > HUM caused the storm which erupted at the 1984 Olympiad in > Seattle, I have a right to an informed opinion here. Seating rights > are a minor issue. The big issue is that HUM pairs can no longer > play their HUM often enough to practise it. Richard Willey has > already corrected Herman's inaccuracies in two posts to the > parent thread. > > A most fascinating and IMO costfree experiment should IMO > be conducted by the WBF. They should declare soon that the > 2003 World Junior Teams Championship will permit HUMs > (with seating loss). This gives NBOs adequate warning so > that their junior players can decide whether to play HUMs. > I am pretty sure that Australia is one country that would > consequently reintroduce permission to play HUMs in our > National Junior teams events. In the unlikely event that no > HUMs then emerged at the 2003 WJC, Herman would > have a point. Note that it is too late to do this in 2001. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > I most emphatically want to second Peter's proposal. I believe the WBF have done enough to counter the advantages that HUM's have from being unusual, and that they should be allowed. At least at the highest level. And if a World Championship is not the highest level, then what 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 Sun Aug 6 18:22:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e768JXB01852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e768JSt01848 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net [216.252.211.92]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ua161870 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:34:33 +1000 Message-ID: <01d301bfff7d$a97e8820$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000801124938.00890350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:01:05 +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 All bids above 3NT in Australia are 'self alerting' and you must NOT alert them, so here, not a problem. For the life of me I can't understand why the Double is alertable - looks like a standard take out double to me! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: Sent: 1 August 2000 8:49 Subject: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting > Hello again, > > and sorry for not responding the last 316 mails, but you probably guessed > why. I promise it won't happen again ... at least until Xmas. > > During the Deauville tournament, a strange case happened. The director > exonerated us, but it still raises an interesting question : > > The laws state thet : > 1) you have to alert anything unexpected > 2) you don't have to alert meanings that follow from bridge logic only > > So, what if the opponents aren't in a position to apply bridge logic to the > case, so that the meaning will be unexpected to them ? > > Here is the case : west / NS vul > > W (George) N E (your truly) S > > xxx K > QJxxx Kxxx > Axx KQ10xx > xx Jxx > > pass 1S double (1) 2S > 3H double (2) 4D (3) pass > 4H pass pass pass > > 4H was the obvious 1 down ; 4S would have made ; 5S would probably not. > > (1) 11+ HCP, guarantees 4+ hearts. Alerted, but *not asked* > (2) general values > (3) it follows from (1) that 4D is a fit-showing bid, enabling partner to > decide what to do over 4S (he would have defended, of course). So George > did not alert. > > Confronted to a strong, misfit-sounding sequence, North decided his partner > had bid 2S on a virtual Yarborough (why not ?) and called it a day. > On seeing the dummy, he called for the director, because 4D was not alerted. > > You see the point : the meaning of 4D is obvious from the meaning of the > double, excepted that the latter was not known of the opponents at the > critical moment. > How would you interpret the LB in this case ? (yes, we sometimes have to do > it, like it or not) > > Regards, > > A. > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 6 18:22:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e768JkK01868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e768JZt01858 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net [216.252.211.92]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id wa161872 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:34:36 +1000 Message-ID: <01d501bfff7d$ab654980$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "'BLML'" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:23:39 +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 how often, pray tell, does such an easy 'key' appear? Very rarely I suggest. Why can't declarer have 7 spades rather than 6? Or a good 5 even? By the time you have got to a point where the distribution in one suit is known, it is too late. And what about 'Declarers advantage'? Isn't that unfair too? Why not ban that as well? BTW, You don't need illegal methods to show an encouraging signal with only even cards - just play high/lo which cancels the negative message. (Similarly with only odd cards, hi/lo says cancel the positive message.) regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Sinot" To: "'BLML'" Sent: 2 August 2000 12:22 Subject: RE: [BLML] Encryted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > alain gottcheiner wrote: > > >AG : they are said to give an unfair advantage to the players using them. I > >don't see why either. But there was a time when Italian signalling (odd > >encourages, even lavinthalizes) were disaalowed in some countries. So > >maybe things will evolve. > > Italian signalling does not give declarers a headache, but TDs. How do > you encourage if you only have even cards? Answer: hesitate, then play > a high card ;-) > > Why an encrypted signal gives the ones using it an unfair advantage? > Let me give an example. Suppose you have the following agreement: > you signal high-low for even. However, as soon as both defenders know > how many cards partner has in some suit, you start signalling in > reverse if you have an odd number of cards in the known suit. > Example: suppose declarer (right of you) plays 4S, after opening > a weak two. You lead the king of diamonds (requesting distribution). > Left of you appear two spades. You have two of them, and declarer > six (because of his weak two). Your partner therefore must have three > spades. Your partner makes the same deduction, hence there is a > known suit. Your partner will now signal low-high for even. This > is a signal which declarer cannot understand, unless he knows > how many spades you have. That can be called an unfair advantage, > for the defenders know more than declarer. > > The signal described above uses an encryption key based on some > distributional property. There are more possibilities, such as > that the weaker of the two defenders according to some formula > reverses signalling (see post Herman de Wael), but they have > in common that the signal can only be decoded if you know the > particular distribution used for encrypting. > > Note that the Italian signalling does not have this property. > Declarer possesses the same information as the defenders. The > trouble with this signalling method is that it is sometimes > impossible to give the proper signal, and defenders sometimes > resort to illegal means to suggest it (see above). > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 18:22:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e768Jkm01869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e768JZt01857 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net [216.252.211.92]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id xa161873 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:34:38 +1000 Message-ID: <01d601bfff7d$ac9b0a60$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00d701bffc07$f8da7420$6a5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers seen Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:46:04 +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 If these are the regulations, eg. banning the weak 2 suiter opening, with no anchor suit, at the two level, then I'm pleased I'm not playing International bridge. It is a joke! regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Peter Gill" Sent: 2 August 2000 8:26 Subject: [BLML] Brown stickers seen > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "The intolerable wrestle > With words and meanings. " (T S Eliot) > yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy > > +=+ Convention cards for Maastricht > are showing up with one or two Brown > conventions that may not be played > in the round robin. Examples : > > 3*=pre-empt in either minor > 3*=pre-empt in either major > 2NT=pre-empt in either minor or > strong in both minors > 2*=two suiter excluding Spades > which is or could be weak > 2*= 6-11 any two-suiter > 2*= 5/4 major/minor which is > BS if it could be less > than an average hand. > > [Note that multiple possibilities > of weak opening hands, whether > with or without strong possibilities, > must have a known suit of at least > four cards that is common to ALL > the weak possibilities. For this > purpose weak is less than an > average hand.] ~ 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 Sun Aug 6 18:22:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e768Jrv01870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:53 +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 e768JZt01856 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net (host-216-252-211-92.interpacket.net [216.252.211.92]) by lethal.atrax.net.au (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.acae) with ESMTP id ya161874 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:34:39 +1000 Message-ID: <01d701bfff7d$ad6c1600$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> From: "Noel & Pamela" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:01:16 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk But of course, Declarer knows that his opponents are using encrypted signals and so he asks each in turn what the others card means. Now he knows everything they do. And if they conceal it from him, they get an adjusted score. What's the problem? regards, Noel &/or Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: 3 August 2000 3:25 Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > In-Reply-To: <00d901bffc07$fbbcfaa0$6a5408c3@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+I make no comment on what should > > be considered fair or desirable. What I > > have gathered to be an argument for > > the prohibition is that part of the > > essential nature of the game is for > > declarer to have equal access with > > defenders to the content of messages > > they exchange. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Perhaps you should try "Sir, this is not argument - it is specious > twaddle. It is the meaning of the message that must be clear - not the > content." > > Take a situation where dummy holds CKJ. Each defender makes a (true) > signal meaning "I have a club honour." The content of one message is "I > have the club Q" the other "I have the CA" - of course only the defenders > can understand the content - declarer lacks the key. > > SOs wishing to ban encrypted signals should find a better reason. Note: > "Our research tells us that permitting them would drive down membership > undermining our revenues and ability to promote the game." *is* a valid > reason (assuming decent research). > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 19:36:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e769Zlg01954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:35:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e769Zft01950 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:35:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-237.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.237]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3884B36B54; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 11:35:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004501bfff88$b6d7e2e0$19b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" , "David Burn" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 11:23:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gentlemen, as I concluded before this discussion leads nowhere (or better: leads to different ends) as long as misinformation is restricted to a wrong explanation of a call shown. Then we can not apply 21B in this situation. I agree, I agree. But if we accept that somebody inadvertently putting down a pass card, where he wanted to bid 4S (for example) gives misinformation we could apply 21B. Let us assume him saying: 'sorry gentlemen I misinformed you, I wanted to bid 4S but for some reason I don't understand I took the pass card out of my box'. Is the table then starting to laugh, because the use of the word 'misinformed' here is ridiculous?. Grattan tries to solve this problem in another way, saying that putting down a pass card inadvertently does not make it a call. That is a very inventive approach as well. But I think that it creates more problems than my solution. Law 25A is clear in describing such a pass as an inadvertent CALL. And the appendix describing the use of bidding boxes shouldn't be read in this way either. In the mean time I hope and think that Max Bavin, who started this with an innocent question, knows what to do when such a thing happens at the table. ton >> >> This discussion leads nowhere. If we can't agree on the fact that a pass >> card carries information and that somebody showing a pass card when he >> wanted to show something else gives misinformation I give up. >> >+=+ I must say, ton, that I am hesitant >to support your view of the way the >law and regulations apply to the facts >we have been given. My first concern is >to establish whether the call has been >made (under WBF regulations, which >I believe the English regulations copy >as nearly as no matter). It appears to >me that the green card was pulled from >the box without apparent intent to do >so. I am not sure from the narrative >what happened next. Did the player >realize promptly that he had done >something unintentional, and say so, >without placing the card on the tray? >If he did I would say that no call has >been made and there is no call for >him to change. By what action has >the player justified the Director in >finding that the call has been made? > And if the call has been made, >does it not stand as a part of the >legal auction so that any Law 25 >change is a change of a legal call in >the auction, with no involvement of >misinformation but subject to the >provisions of Law 25? > But I am also unable to see >exactly what information he has >conveyed to any other player at the >table. The player pulled the green >card from the box inadvertently or >by accident? What kind of information >can that give to any other player >at the table? - that he is careless >perhaps, or clumsy, but it says >nothing about the auction or the >cards in his hand. I am really at >a loss to know *what* information >it is suggested this mishap has >conveyed to anyone at the table, >whether misinformation to the >opponents or UI to his partner. > ~ 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 Aug 6 20:29:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76ATgY01995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 20:29:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76ATYt01991 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 20:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.232] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LNgG-000OJo-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 11:29:20 +0100 Message-ID: <007901bfff91$2fdb3860$0f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Vitold" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <000001bffd43$92238220$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> <003801bffe73$6be30f00$705408c3@dodona> <398D0C32.60D986FD@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: [BLML] Re: HUM (lo-o-ong) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 11:18:02 +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: Sunday, August 06, 2000 7:56 AM Subject: HUM > "Why no HUM". > Would you be so kind as to make your > remarks (privately will do:) ) > Thank you in advance > Best wishes > Vitold > +=+ Dear Vitold, You may be right. Perhaps I ought to express some personal opinions on what you said in your 'long' email to blml. If you are right, then I should copy them to blml, which is what I have done. 1. First, the SO or your Russian NBO does have the power today to allow HUM methods in such tournaments or events as it may wish. [ If you have adopted the WBF Systems Policy all you need to do is to designate the event as a Category 1 event. Otherwise you simply include the permission to play HUMs in the Conditions of Contest.] 2. I agree that there is a great variety of HUM methods. Where they are allowed the players who have to defend against them can have an enormous task in preparing their defences, different defences according to the styles and content of the HUM systems. I do not believe proper preparation is possible unless the players have access to the details of the systems for several weeks before the tournament. Without proper preparation of defences the HUM partnership that is steeped* in its methods has an unfair advantage. It gains from the strangeness as much as from the merit of its methods. 3. At some levels of play I do not consider it reasonable to expect the class of player to have the expertise to understand what is needed in defence. I believe that HUM systems are acceptable, if at all, only in expert play. 4. In my opinion full disclosure of a HUM system, including its negative inferences, has rarely been made available. To fully expose a HUM system takes pages, usually many pages, of supplementary sheets attached to the convention card. Most convention cards are not in a form that can adapt to this need. Where HUMs are to be allowed the SO must give adequate thought to the nature of the CC, and to the regulation of what is required by way of disclosure. The truth, I think, is that it probably requires each partnership to produce its system file for the perusal of opponents and Directors, and to do this an adequate time in advance of the tournament. 5. Where HUMs are to be played the Directors need opportunities for access to system files in order to make their rulings. I think that Directors should not allow of any 'inferences' that the HUM pair can be expected to have discussed, but which have not been disclosed in the description of the methods sent in advance to other players. 6. If players were to be allowed to use HUMs when all four players at the table agreed to it, I think this right should be restricted to head- to-head team matches, and subject to lodging HUM system files with the Director. I think your 'Legend' should take into account the needs of the Director. (* 'steeped'= soaked in, saturated, in this context 'well practised in'). Warm 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 Sun Aug 6 21:11:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76BAFk02026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:10:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76BAAt02022 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack (p82-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.82]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA27090 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:10:07 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000806230809.007b47a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 23:08:09 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: [BLML] re: HUM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: 2. I agree that there is a great variety of HUM methods. Where they are allowed the players who have to defend against them can have an enormous task in preparing their defences, different defences according to the styles and content of the HUM systems. I do not believe proper preparation is possible unless the players have access to the details of the systems for several weeks before the tournament. Without proper preparation of defences the HUM partnership that is steeped* in its methods has an unfair advantage. It gains from the strangeness as much as from the merit of its methods. -------------------------------------------- I've heard other people talk about needing 'weeks' to prepare properly against HUMS. Strangely enough they are always advocates of the 'if it shows any free thinking then shoot it' movement. Let's carefully consider what it might mean to spend 'weeks' preparing your system defence: Does it mean a partnership conference for 3 hours one evening, followed by a few phone calls in the next few days discussing a few details thought of later? Then perhaps at the weekend you get together to bid 20-30 hands over some of the oppontent's simulated unusual openings? Give me a break!! That's one week and a preparation that seems dramatically over the top. Some discussion in the car or plane on the way to the event is more than enough time to give you a perfectly adequate defence to any HUM system without eating into any personal time. Personally I seldom do even that. In NZ we have to deal with a number of different HUMS (in teams events at least) and I have found a 3 minute discussion at the start of the match to be more than adequate. I agree that in some events pre-circulation of HUMS is a good idea, but the notion that you might need weeks of preparation time is just a load of claptrap spouted by those who want to see HUMS wiped out. Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 21:22:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76BMW502045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:22:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76BMSt02041 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:22:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e76BMRK18530 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:22:27 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:22:27 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <000601bfff2e$609020a0$b05408c3@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "disinterested" means unbiased or impartial "uninterested" indicates absence of interest -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 6 21:23:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76BNCI02057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:23:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e76BN4t02053 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:23:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87437 invoked for bounce); 6 Aug 2000 11:22:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.225) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 6 Aug 2000 11:22:58 -0000 Message-ID: <021101bfff98$e1cbb980$e1391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:19:11 +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 "David Stevenson" wrote: > E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S > B 14 6 Pairs > 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 > J943 P 2H#2 P 2N > QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N > 852 QT973 AP > K2 A9763 > 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG > A73 #2 Negative > AKJ4 #3 Transfer > QJT > AKQ > > South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. > He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely > were playing transfers. > > North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and > believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he > wants to play there. > > It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only > one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. > > West led the H5 against 3NT and South made ten tricks: she said she > would have found a different lead if she had know 3H was a transfer. I am not convinced at all. The information W received was that N has at least 5 hearts. So why lead a head from three small? I can't see how getting the correct information (plus a possible lead-directing X of 3H) would influence W more towards leading something else. The play itself also leaves not much room for restricting declarer to 9 tricks. I thus do not even consider it to be "at all likely" that with correct information the NO's result would have been better than the actual table result. However, I fine *N* a standard PP for not informing opponents about partner's failure to alert. 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 Aug 6 22:39:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Cckh02147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcRt02121 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:28 +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 13LPh7-0002Rr-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:32:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > >>> is it possible to >>> deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass card >>> when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? >>> >>+=+ I am having a slight difficulty here. Exactly >>what is the information that we are asked to >>agree the player has conveyed? If it is plain that >>he was not thinking of passing, I am not clear >>what the partner may learn from the accidental >>removal of the pass card from the box. +=+ > >This discussion leads nowhere. If we can't agree on the fact that a pass >card carries information and that somebody showing a pass card when he >wanted to show something else gives misinformation I give up. The trouble with this is it is difficult to argue. To me it is so obviously information given to the opponents that I cannot think of anyway of saying so apart from "It is blindingly obvious" I believe that L21B applies to this situation. If it is not completely obvious that it does, can we not just agree it is a "reasonable interpretation"? When a player make an inadvertent call by speaking, writing or producing a bidding card that gives information to the opponents. When that information is wrong and he is allowed to change it under L25A then L21B applies if the next player has called. EBU TDs have been taught this interpretation. Perhaps we should try it on the EBU L&EC next! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidntally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Sun Aug 6 22:39:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Ccsu02153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcXt02132 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:34 +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 13LPh9-0002Rh-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:37:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B65D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <398BA916.3D907450@eduhi.at> In-Reply-To: <398BA916.3D907450@eduhi.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >"Kooijman, A." schrieb: > >> > > Is it possible to tell me why L21B does not apply to this situation? > > >> So according to this approach the pass card gives information. Since the >> player never intended to put out the pass card he never wanted to distribute >> this information. More precise: he wanted to give other information. This >> situation I dared to describe as causing (giving) misinformation. >> > >But even if you use "information" in this wide sense (I do not agree >with it, and I do not think it is the established practice), there is no >infraction. L73E permits the *intentional* dissemination of >"misinformation" of this kind; a fortiori the accidental cannot then be >illegal. And where there has been no infraction, there can be no >redress, not even under L21A. > >But I suggest another course: Why not apply the second part of L25B1 "If >offender's LHO..." to L25A as well? To be sure, L25B is applicable only >when L25A does not apply, but: IMO this refers only to the options of >the "OS". The "If offender's LHO..." part contains an additional >regulation for the very case we have in this discussion, only that it >had been foreseen by the law-makers in the L25B situation but presumably >not for the L25A situation. So extending the scope of this part to the >whole of L25 seems about right. There is a very simple way of dealing with this which is within the Laws, acceptable to the majority, and the obvious way to deal with it. There is no need for a complicated change to make L25B, which applies when L25A does not, also apply when L25A does. That way madness lies. Quango is not very impressed by this thread, he tells me! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidntally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Sun Aug 6 22:39:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Cci002146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:44 +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-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcRt02120 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:28 +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 13LPh7-0002Rs-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:33:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> <000201bfff7d$5b61e380$0f5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000201bfff7d$5b61e380$0f5608c3@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: > But I am also unable to see >exactly what information he has >conveyed to any other player at the >table. The player pulled the green >card from the box inadvertently or >by accident? What kind of information >can that give to any other player >at the table? - that he is careless >perhaps, or clumsy, but it says >nothing about the auction or the >cards in his hand. The information it gives to the next player is that this player is passing. That is misinformation, since he is not passing. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidntally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Sun Aug 6 22:39:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Ccu902155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcZt02138 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:36 +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 13LPh7-0002Rl-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:21:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <01d701bfff7d$ad6c1600$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <01d701bfff7d$ad6c1600$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Noel & Pamela wrote: >But of course, Declarer knows that his opponents are using encrypted signals >and so he asks each in turn what the others card means. Now he knows >everything they do. And if they conceal it from him, they get an adjusted >score. > >What's the problem? A legitimate and completely correct answer would be: "If my partner's card is high and he has an odd number of trumps it is encouraging: If it is low and he has an even number of trumps it is encouraging: otherwise it is discouraging." That is the method as they play it. Whether high or low is encouraging is "encrypted" by the number of trumps in the defender's hand. On a bidding sequence where you and your partner have show precisely eight trumps, both defenders know that whether their partner is playing high or low to encourage, but they do not need to tell declarer that. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidntally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Sun Aug 6 22:39:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Ccog02151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcVt02125 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:32 +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 13LPh8-0002Rg-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:03:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Apparent contradiction about alerting References: <3.0.6.32.20000801124938.00890350@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01d301bfff7d$a97e8820$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <01d301bfff7d$a97e8820$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Noel & Pamela wrote: >All bids above 3NT in Australia are 'self alerting' and you must NOT alert >them, so here, not a problem. For the life of me I can't understand why the >Double is alertable - looks like a standard take out double to me! Standard? Do you play that double of 1S denies: A KQJ xxxxx ? AKQx Most people don't! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the new International Bridge Laws Forum Click on the button on http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 6 22:39:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Cd0V02156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:39:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcTt02123 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LPhA-0002Rl-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:45:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown stickers seen References: <00d701bffc07$f8da7420$6a5408c3@dodona> <01d601bfff7d$ac9b0a60$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> In-Reply-To: <01d601bfff7d$ac9b0a60$5cd3fcd8@noelbuge> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Noel & Pamela wrote: >If these are the regulations, eg. banning the weak 2 suiter opening, with no >anchor suit, at the two level, then I'm pleased I'm not playing >International bridge. It is a joke! I think that people might have a little sympathy for other people around the world. It is not surprising that Australians find it strange that they are not allowed to play such a wide set of conventions as they do at home, but they forget that their players are used to it, and Australians who dislike playing against lots of conventions have already given up bridge for some other pastime. Similarly the reverse: North Americans would do well to allow for the fact that other countries allow much more freedom in use of convention, and that attempts to undermine this by non-legal ways, treating rules of disclosure differently for conventions that are not Standard American ones for example, is not the way to go. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidntally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Sun Aug 6 22:39:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Ccqw02152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76CcRt02119 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:38:28 +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 13LPh7-0002Rh-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:38:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 12:13:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> It is not up to me to decide whether whoever wrote >> >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals >> > > "because >they are >> >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. >> meant what they say, but I feel I am at liberty to disagree with it, >> which I do. > >Would I be right in inferring (I am not trying to put words in >your mouth, just trying to understand your beliefs) that > >You personally believe that encrypted signals are fair but you think >it would be reasonable for others to believe that they are unfair? I have never thought about whether encrypted signals are fair. My instinct tells me nothing. I do not personally see them as unfair or fair. >I am having genuine problems understanding what it is you disagree >with in my statement. In an attempt at clarity. > >I think it is ridiculous to call encrypted signals "unfair". As I say, I have no real comment on this. >I think it is ridiculous to ban something "fair" on the grounds that >it is "unfair". Well, yes, but that is different to the original statement. I believe that [premise] some signalling is unfair [conclusion] means it is reasonable to ban that method. I do not think everyone agrees with this, so I do not put it in the class of things "not worth saying". Some people seem to believe we should allow anything to be played. When you say >> >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals >> > > "because >they are >> >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. I read it originally, and having considered further, still do, as saying it is a ridiculous idea to ban something "because it is unfair". Nothing about whether the actual method is unfair, on which I have no position. -- 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 Sun Aug 6 23:29:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76DTR702262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:29:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76DTKt02258 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:29:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.218] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LQUI-0001DY-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:29:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01bfffaa$4f6e11c0$da5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" , "ton kooijman" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <004501bfff88$b6d7e2e0$19b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:27:43 +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 To: Grattan Endicott ; Bridge Laws ; David Burn Cc: Max Bavin Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > Grattan tries to solve this problem in another way, saying that putting down > a pass card inadvertently does not make it a call. That is a very inventive > approach as well. But I think that it creates more problems than my > solution. Law 25A is clear in describing such a pass as an inadvertent CALL. > And the appendix describing the use of bidding boxes shouldn't be read in > this way either. > +=+ I do not believe it is 'inventive' to attempt to read the regulation and understand what it means. My question is put at a stage before Law 25A applies. I am seeking to know whether under the regulation the player has made any call. I would agree that he has made an inadvertent call if he has placed the bidding card , released it, and made no observation of his inadvertent mistake. Is this what happened, if not, what did happen? The question I have is whether the player did put the green card down, as ton says, and if so where did he put it down and when did he draw attention to the fact that he had accidentally done something he had not intended? Was it after his Pass became an established call, or was it while the words "with apparent intent" still had the effect that the call had not been made? Ton has responded on the basis that the call has been made; I have merely said, "could we just be clear about that, please?" and it has to do with the effect of the regulation. The Director does have the decision to make as to whether the call has been made, and the decision he makes will affect the ruling he is to make regarding any change. But in my view his ruling will either be that no call has been made to be changed, or alternatively that a call has been made which is part of the legal auction and which can be changed as Law 25 allows. In the latter event, I can see no misinformation such as the WBFLC has recognized up to now; if we need to go outside of Law 25 a more likely solution would be that the change creates a withdrawn action within the meaning of Law 16C - but this is subject to the difficulty that the preamble of 16C refers to retraction after an infraction. Thus I come to the personal conclusion that we do not go outside of Law 25. If the change is made under 25A it is made without penalty, and everyone is free to draw whatever information can be gained from the occurrence; if it is a 25B change then the player changing his call is designated 'the offender' and there is a restriction on the use of information from the withdrawn call by the partner of that offender. But once it is recognized that the first call was inadvertent and had no purpose I do not believe there is available to any player any information within the meaning of the laws by which an opponent could be misinformed or which the partner could use. I am just totally surprised to find that ton thinks differently. ~ G ~ +=+ [There is no official backing for my point of view ; no pronouncement has been made that would provide a basis, for or against - we all have to read the words for ourselves.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 01:16:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76FFK302335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 01:15:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e76FFEt02331 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 01:15:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 56367 invoked by uid 65534); 6 Aug 2000 15:15:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000806151506.56366.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.255.167.80] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <004501bfff88$b6d7e2e0$19b5f1c3@kooijman> <000b01bfffaa$4f6e11c0$da5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:16:49 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: David Burn ; Bridge Laws ; ton kooijman Cc: Max Bavin Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 8:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A | | Grattan Endicott | To: Grattan Endicott ; | Bridge Laws ; | David Burn | Cc: Max Bavin | Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 10:23 AM | Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A | | | > Grattan tries to solve this problem in another way, saying that putting | down | > a pass card inadvertently does not make it a call. That is a very | inventive | > approach as well. But I think that it creates more problems than my | > solution. Law 25A is clear in describing such a pass as an inadvertent | CALL. | > And the appendix describing the use of bidding boxes shouldn't be read in | > this way either. | > | +=+ I do not believe it is 'inventive' to attempt | to read the regulation and understand what it | means. My question is put at a stage before | Law 25A applies. I am seeking to know | whether under the regulation the player has | made any call. I would agree that he has made | an inadvertent call if he has placed the bidding | card , released it, and made no observation of | his inadvertent mistake. Is this what happened, | if not, what did happen? The question I have is | whether the player did put the green card | down, as ton says, and if so where did he put | it down and when did he draw attention to the | fact that he had accidentally done something | he had not intended? Was it after his Pass | became an established call, or was it while | the words "with apparent intent" still had the | effect that the call had not been made? Ton | has responded on the basis that the call | has been made; I have merely said, "could we | just be clear about that, please?" and it has | to do with the effect of the regulation. | The Director does have the decision to | make as to whether the call has been made, | and the decision he makes will affect the | ruling he is to make regarding any change. | But in my view his ruling will either be that | no call has been made to be changed, or | alternatively that a call has been made | which is part of the legal auction and which | can be changed as Law 25 allows. In the | latter event, I can see no misinformation | such as the WBFLC has recognized up to | now; if we need to go outside of Law 25 | a more likely solution would be that | the change creates a withdrawn action | within the meaning of Law 16C - but this | is subject to the difficulty that the | preamble of 16C refers to retraction | after an infraction. | Thus I come to the personal conclusion | that we do not go outside of Law 25. If the | change is made under 25A it is made | without penalty, and everyone is free to | draw whatever information can be gained | from the occurrence; if it is a 25B change | then the player changing his call is | designated 'the offender' and there | is a restriction on the use of information | from the withdrawn call by the partner | of that offender. But once it is recognized | that the first call was inadvertent and | had no purpose I do not believe there is | available to any player any information | within the meaning of the laws by which | an opponent could be misinformed or | which the partner could use. I am just | totally surprised to find that ton thinks | differently. ~ G ~ +=+ | | [There is no official backing for my | point of view ; no pronouncement | has been made that would provide | a basis, for or against - we all have | to read the words for ourselves.] Certainly there are more Classes of Information than partnership agreement to an action. It seems to me that the Laws attach a conventional meaning that cannot be ignored to a pass card placed on the table at the contestant's turn to call. Namely that it is now the turn of his LHO. When determining the status of such a green stop card it seems there are two scenarios to consider: [1] presumably the contestant is paying attention and will notice the incorrect card as it is lifted from the box. Certainly, as there are ramifications for failing to do something about it immediately, he will say something post haste. [2] failing the above, if he is not paying attention to what he is doing he certainly must be paying attention to what he is about to do. In that case if the skip bid is imminent then he surely must be now pulling the bid out of the box. This certainly is strong evidence that the green card was intended as a skip bid warning. Otherwise, the pass card certainly looks like a legal call to the rest of the table. If neither [1] or [2] occurred in the case and there was indeed time for LHO to act and he did, then it seems that the requirement - inadvertent and before partner acts has been met, but the requirement of 'no pause for thought' has not been met for the application of L25A. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 02:25:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76GOcs02389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:24:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76GOTt02381 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:24:30 +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 13LTDu-0008q7-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:24:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01HchFAhlYj5EwhO@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 16:50:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: HUM (lo-o-ong) References: <000001bffd43$92238220$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> <003801bffe73$6be30f00$705408c3@dodona> <398D0C32.60D986FD@elnet.msk.ru> <007901bfff91$2fdb3860$0f5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007901bfff91$2fdb3860$0f5608c3@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 <007901bfff91$2fdb3860$0f5608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip > 6. If players were to be allowed to >use HUMs when all four players at >the table agreed to it, I think this >right should be restricted to head- >to-head team matches, and subject >to lodging HUM system files with >the Director. I think your 'Legend' >should take into account the needs >of the Director. The YC allows HUMs on a Friday night, subject to a number of conditions. 1) Permission to play it must be granted. This is only withheld if the system is deemed of no bridge merit. Permission is usually given. 2) The opponents have the right to request not to play against it. Some of our LOLs just can't be bothered to think through the implications. Probably only one pair will so request in an evening. 3) The basic methods and defences must be posted a week in advance, so people can discuss them in the bar. In many respects this is the best part of the HUM. 4) No more than one pair may play a HUM in each direction. One pair a night is ok for most of our members. 5) No psyching the methods! If you're trying something at least give it a sensible shot. (I rule cpu and adjust if I think an anti-systemic bid occurred) 6) A printed sheet with the defences MUST be available to the opponents. 7) System notes must be available to the TD, in case of rulings. Within this context we get about 1 HUM every 3 months and the players usually play it 2 or 3 times before trying something else. In general these rules work very well and several HUMs have made it into mainstream competitions over the years via the YC imp game. If any other club has similar CoC's for HUMs I'd be interested to hear them 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 Aug 7 02:25:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76GOZU02388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:24:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76GORt02379 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:24:28 +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 13LTDq-0008q4-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:24:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 17:11:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley 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 , David Stevenson writes > > E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S > B 14 6 Pairs > 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 > J943 P 2H#2 P 2N > QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N > 852 QT973 AP > K2 A9763 > 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG > A73 #2 Negative > AKJ4 #3 Transfer > QJT > AKQ > > South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. >He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely >were playing transfers. > > North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and >believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he >wants to play there. > Agreed. > It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only >one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. > Agreed. > West led the H5 against 3NT and South made ten tricks: she said she >would have found a different lead if she had know 3H was a transfer. > > So, how did the redoubtable Malcolm Lunn rule? > No damage? West is entitled to know North has 5S and would deduce that South is 2344 or 3334. On a Club lead declarer could easily unblock the C and duck a S. On a diamond return and spade continuation the H finesse doesn't appeal and I'd rule 9 tricks in 3N. 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 Aug 7 02:27:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76GRoO02407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:27:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76GRit02403 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:27:45 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:27:39 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Should the TD adjust when he is not asked to? Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:27:36 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a hypothetical case. I made it up to clarify the position on the subject mentioned in the Subject of this post (boy, this could get confusing). Suppose you are called by the WE players - a pair of rookies. AKxx Q AKxx J109x xx AKxx xxx Axxx The bidding took a somewhat bizarre course: N S 1NT 2C 2H 3NT p The WE complain that opener's hand was not balanced and expect that the NS side to be penalized for just that. An inspection of the play reveals that WE were not damaged in any way. You explain to the defenders that opening 1NT on a 4441 hand doesn't automatically lead to score adjustment, read the appropriate Laws etc. They understand and agree that the result should stand. In the process, however, you manage to discover what really happened during the bidding. North opened 1NT - a judgement decision; nothing for the TD to do here. South bid Stayman and North was then asked about the meaning of South's bid. "A transfer to hearts" responded North. Now South realized that North misheard his bid and thought he had bid 2D instead. Hence North's 2H rebid was not a response to the Stayman enquiry but a simple completion of a transfer. South didn't raise therefore to 4H but tried 3NT instead. This is a clear UI case but you see that the WE is unable to see this and none of them thinks anything wrong happened. This is not the reason why you were called to the table. About ten years ago I read a book "Comments on the Bridge Law" released by the Polish Bridge Union. Being in Finland since a couple of weeks I can neither recall the author nor check whether this was a translation of an official WBF document or not (I'm about 75% sure that it was but I wouldn't bet my head on it). And a comment to one of the examples was "A contestant who doesn't know how he was damaged is not entitled to adjustment". That would suggest that in the case I constructed the TD should let the table result stand and not adjust to 4H. Should he? Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 03:04:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76H4Mg02458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:04:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e76H4Ft02454 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:04:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26074 invoked for bounce); 6 Aug 2000 17:04:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.7) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 6 Aug 2000 17:04:11 -0000 Message-ID: <000901bfffc8$8d3d2540$07291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <000001bffd43$92238220$bdb4f1c3@kooijman> <003801bffe73$6be30f00$705408c3@dodona> <398D0C32.60D986FD@elnet.msk.ru> <007901bfff91$2fdb3860$0f5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: HUM (lo-o-ong) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:05:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Vitold > > "Why no HUM". > > Would you be so kind as to make your > > remarks (privately will do:) ) > > Thank you in advance > > Best wishes > > Vitold > > [...] > 2. I agree that there is a great > variety of HUM methods. Where they > are allowed the players who have to > defend against them can have an > enormous task in preparing their > defences, different defences according > to the styles and content of the HUM > systems. I need about two hours to set up a complete defense against an unknown HUM system. I then need one more hour to discuss the new defense with partner. If we were to play against HUMs frequently, we would probably be able to agree on a defense against an unknown HUM at the table, by reusing defense we have already developed and tested. > I do not believe proper > preparation is possible unless the > players have access to the details > of the systems for several weeks > before the tournament. Without > proper preparation of defences the > HUM partnership that is steeped* in > its methods has an unfair advantage. > It gains from the strangeness as > much as from the merit of its > methods. I demand that North Americans do not play Standard American with 2/1 on international championships. I am completely unfamiliar with the system, and the US players never volunteer all the information I need, because they assume some basic knowledge about heir system. For example, if the auction begins 1S - 1NT (forcing), I need the information which hands exactly will bid 2S/3S directly, which hands would bid 1NT despite having some spade support, and how the latter hands would be shown after intervention. OTOH, I am sure that most American players are quite unfamiliar with the various home-brewn natural systems some European pairs are playing. Example bidding situations: 1C* (at least three clubs, natural, 11-37, unconditionally forcing) pass 1H* (at least four hearts, 6-9, obviously non-forcing) 2S* (either a strong two in spades, or destructive preempt in spades, or 8-11, both minors) pass 2NT* (diamond fit or strong) 1S* (any 9-15 unbalanced with at least 4 spades) > 3. At some levels of play I do not > consider it reasonable to expect the > class of player to have the expertise > to understand what is needed in > defence. I believe that HUM systems > are acceptable, if at all, only in > expert play. HUM systems IMHO are ok in all IMP matches with at least 8 boards per round. > 4. In my opinion full disclosure of > a HUM system, including its > negative inferences, has rarely been > made available. To fully expose a > HUM system takes pages, usually > many pages, of supplementary > sheets attached to the convention > card. Most convention cards are > not in a form that can adapt to this > need. This is correct, but does in no way distinguish HUMs from unfamiliar natural methods. See the examples abouve. There exist pairs whose "natural" home-brewn system consists of thousands of pages. I also doubt that there are many expert players on this planet who have solid experience with all natural bidding systems. > Where HUMs are to be > allowed the SO must give adequate > thought to the nature of the CC, > and to the regulation of what is > required by way of disclosure. The > truth, I think, is that it probably > requires each partnership to > produce its system file for the > perusal of opponents and Directors, > and to do this an adequate time in > advance of the tournament. It is nice if opponents provide me a system description of their HUM in advance. However, "natural" methods then should be treated similarly. > 5. Where HUMs are to be played > the Directors need opportunities > for access to system files in order > to make their rulings. I think that > Directors should not allow of any > 'inferences' that the HUM pair > can be expected to have discussed, > but which have not been disclosed > in the description of the methods > sent in advance to other players. I sense here a general assumption that HUM players are cheating more than players who play SAYC. 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 Aug 7 03:14:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76HEKT02485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:14:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76HEDt02481 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:14:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial7.isi.com [192.103.52.198]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id KAA07585; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:05:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "John Probst" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: HUM (lo-o-ong) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 13:15:28 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01bfffc9$eb0bed40$c63467c0@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: <01HchFAhlYj5EwhO@probst.demon.co.uk> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The MIT bridge club policy is anything goes. Pairs may use whatever methods they wish including HUMs. Pairs playing any methods at or above the ACBL midchart in complexity are required to provide written suggested defenses during the game. The bridge club has a policy similar to that of "protected pairs". Novice players have the right to ask players using complex methods to modify their system for that round. There may be some stigma attached to this, since I can only recall one player ever making the request. Couple comments The MIT club is probably one of the largest club games in Boston right now. Despite the very liberal system policies, on a given night typically all but 3-4 pairs will be playing some version of stanard american or 2/1. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOY2dKyGkJ7YU62vZEQLHywCfSqwPdUm35te3LAJV29Dp5tGKpY8AoK0s BD5HIMEFz4OikMiRcaLD75+n =HWeA -----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 Mon Aug 7 04:49:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76ImrJ02543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 04:48:53 +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 e76Imkt02539 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 04:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.57] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LVTW-0006ek-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:48:42 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01bfffd6$f28bddc0$395408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Patrick" References: <3.0.3.32.20000806230809.007b47a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: [BLML] re: HUM Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 19:44:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 12:08 PM Subject: [BLML] re: HUM > > Grattan wrote: > > 2. I agree that there is a great > variety of HUM methods. Where they > are allowed the players who have to > defend against them can have an > enormous task in preparing their > defences, different defences according > to the styles and content of the HUM > systems. I do not believe proper > preparation is possible unless the > players have access to the details > of the systems for several weeks > before the tournament > > I've heard other people talk about needing 'weeks' to prepare > properly against HUMS. Strangely enough they are always advocates > of the 'if it shows any free thinking then shoot it' movement. > +=+ Well, I would not want to take the allegation personally. I will pass it on to the members of the WBF Systems Committee that devised the regulation - they include Jens Auken, Benito Garozzo, Eric Kokish, Chip Martel, Jean-Paul Meyer, Dan Morse, P.O. Sundelin. Some of these must have voted for the policy - there are only four other members of the committee.+=+ --------------------- \x/ ---------------- > Personally I seldom do even that. In NZ we have to deal with > a number of different HUMS (in teams events at least) and I have > found a 3 minute discussion at the start of the match to be more > than adequate. > +=+ I congratulate you on your ability. My observation of teams in the Bermuda Bowl and the Venice Cup satisfies me that these teams in general take a lot longer - weeks in fact when they have several HUM systems to prepare against. They must either think more slowly or perhaps in greater depth, or both. +=+ > > I agree that in some events pre-circulation > of HUMS is a good idea, but the notion > that you might need weeks of preparation > time is just a load of claptrap spouted by > those who want to see HUMS wiped out. > +=+ Ah well, Patrick, that is nice to know. Some teams have evidently been wasting their time. It is useful to have an opinion of this nature coming from the objective standpoint of one who is not a HUM practitioner but plays against them quite often.. ~ 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 Aug 7 05:31:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76JVOE02578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:31:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76JVFt02574 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:31:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d294.iae.nl [212.61.5.40]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AADDB20F2A for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:31:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006e01bfffdc$a8d9d780$de033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:28:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "Noel & Pamela" Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noel & Pamela" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > > > > But of course, Declarer knows that his opponents are using encrypted > signals > > and so he asks each in turn what the others card means. Now he knows > > everything they do. And if they conceal it from him, they get an adjusted > > score. > > > > What's the problem? > > > > regards, > > Noel &/or Pamela > > Maybe time, maybe UI for partner because he knows the (mis)understanding. of > the answerer. > regards, Ben > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim West-meads" > > To: > > Cc: > > Sent: 3 August 2000 3:25 > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > > > > > > > In-Reply-To: <00d901bffc07$fbbcfaa0$6a5408c3@dodona> > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > +=+I make no comment on what should > > > > be considered fair or desirable. What I > > > > have gathered to be an argument for > > > > the prohibition is that part of the > > > > essential nature of the game is for > > > > declarer to have equal access with > > > > defenders to the content of messages > > > > they exchange. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > Perhaps you should try "Sir, this is not argument - it is specious > > > twaddle. It is the meaning of the message that must be clear - not the > > > content." > > > > > > Take a situation where dummy holds CKJ. Each defender makes a (true) > > > signal meaning "I have a club honour." The content of one message is "I > > > have the club Q" the other "I have the CA" - of course only the > defenders > > > can understand the content - declarer lacks the key. > > > > > > SOs wishing to ban encrypted signals should find a better reason. Note: > > > "Our research tells us that permitting them would drive down membership > > > undermining our revenues and ability to promote the game." *is* a valid > > > reason (assuming decent research). > > > > > > 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/ > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 7 05:55:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Jspv02617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:54:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76Jsit02613 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:54:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id c.3a.8b9a980 (4263); Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:53:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:53:28 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, dburn@btinternet.com CC: max@ebu.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gentlemen, (I like that opening, -- so formal, so appropriate, so clear, so polite). I 'd hate to continue what has been described by Ton as a fruitless argument which consists of entrenched positions by different people (I don't agree with him on that at all -- it appears to be a digging in of heels on his part). I'm sure that Max Bavin knows what to do when confronted with this kind of problem -- I'm just not sure that it is what Ton would like it to be. In MHO when it is clear that the pass was never intended, the LHO has the information that the PASS WAS NEVER INTENDED. It interests me to note that the words of the Law treating with actions taken by LHO when a player tries to change his action are under 25B. This implies to me that correction of an inadvertent "call" needs some immediacy to escape 25B action. Please explain to me how LHOs actions could be considered under 25A. If the change of an inadvertent call were to be considered apart from the action of LHO would not the Law, as presently written, have included the effect upon actions by LHO under 25A? Therein lies part of what to me is what needs changing about the whole Law. Rewrite 25A to be 25. Include those aspects of 25B that need to be included, do away with 25B completely, and clearly indicate a time when inadvertency is no longer accepted -- is my suggestion. Of course the ACBL edition of the Laws has neat headings for 25A called "Immediate Correction of Inadvertency" and "Delayed or Purposeful Correction" for 25B which I understand are not part of the Law. Probably they should be. 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 Mon Aug 7 05:55:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76Jsgt02612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:54:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76JsZt02607 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:54:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d013.iae.nl [212.61.3.13]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9153420F0C for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:54:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008701bfffdf$ec21ef20$de033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Should the TD adjust when he is not asked to? Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:52:08 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law 81C.6 gives the TD the possibility to award a splitscore: NZ is penalized. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 6:27 PM Subject: [BLML] Should the TD adjust when he is not asked to? > > > This is a hypothetical case. I made it up > to clarify the position on the subject > mentioned in the Subject of this post (boy, > this could get confusing). > Suppose you are called by the WE players > - a pair of rookies. > > AKxx > Q > AKxx > J109x > > xx > AKxx > xxx > Axxx > > > The bidding took a somewhat bizarre course: > > N S > 1NT 2C > 2H 3NT > p > > The WE complain that opener's hand was not > balanced and expect that the NS side to be penalized > for just that. An inspection of the play reveals that > WE were not damaged in any way. You explain to > the defenders that opening 1NT on a 4441 hand > doesn't automatically lead to score adjustment, > read the appropriate Laws etc. They understand > and agree that the result should stand. > In the process, however, you manage to discover > what really happened during the bidding. North > opened 1NT - a judgement decision; nothing for > the TD to do here. South bid Stayman and North was then > asked about the meaning of South's bid. "A transfer > to hearts" responded North. Now South realized that > North misheard his bid and thought he had bid 2D > instead. Hence North's 2H rebid was not a response to > the Stayman enquiry but a simple completion of > a transfer. South didn't raise therefore to 4H but > tried 3NT instead. > This is a clear UI case but you see that > the WE is unable to see this and none of them > thinks anything wrong happened. This is not > the reason why you were called to the table. > > About ten years ago I read a book "Comments > on the Bridge Law" released by the Polish Bridge > Union. Being in Finland since a couple of weeks > I can neither recall the author nor check whether > this was a translation of an official WBF document > or not (I'm about 75% sure that it was but I > wouldn't bet my head on it). And a comment to one > of the examples was "A contestant who doesn't know > how he was damaged is not entitled to adjustment". > That would suggest that in the case I constructed > the TD should let the table result stand and not > adjust to 4H. Should he? > > > Konrad Ciborowski > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 7 05:56:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76JuUo02636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:56:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76JuOt02632 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:56:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id i.b8.9835f19 (4263); Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:56:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:56:04 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions To: axman22@hotmail.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 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/5/00 11:17:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, axman22@hotmail.com writes: > What does this have to do with banning, unfairness, etc?? How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as to meaning which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? 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 Mon Aug 7 05:58:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76JwdD02650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:58:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76JwXt02646 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 05:58:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id y.b2.8f94118 (4263); Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:58:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:58:10 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Why no HUMs? To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, 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 8/6/00 2:36:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz writes: > > Until the top level of the game allows innovation then I don't believe > > things will ever improve. > > Here Here. Guess someone meant "hear hear?" 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 Mon Aug 7 06:50:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76KnvV02690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 06:49:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e76Knpt02686 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 06:49:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA01449 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:49:42 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 21:49 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: > When you say > >> >> >> >Can we at least accept that banning encrypted signals > >> > > "because >they are > >> >> >> >unfair" is ridiculous. > I read it originally, and having considered further, still do, as > saying > it is a ridiculous idea to ban something "because it is unfair". > Nothing about whether the actual method is unfair, on which I have > no position. OK, I felt that the use of a specific (rather than a general something) gave a different meaning to the sentence - others read it as I intended. It had not occurred to me that *anyone* would be in favour of allowing something "unfair". Like you I believe that "unfairness" is a splendid, and sufficient, reason to ban anything (provided it is deemed unfair, of course). I wanted to establish agreement (or, I suppose, disagreement) to the statement: "There is nothing inherently unfair in encrypted signals". I believed that to be a necessary starting point to understanding why they might be banned. We might arrive at conclusions (not that I necessarily agree with them, but they seem defensible) like: "ES require special defences and are inappropriate for competitions where prior disclosure is not required." OR "Average players must be protected or they will leave the game in droves" OR "ES require very careful disclosure, we should strictly enforce guidelines about this when they are permitted" I cannot think of a reason to bar their use in decent competitions (others might) so I believed a re-analysis of their ban by the WBF et al. to be in order. I *was* greatly concerned that Grattan seemed prepared to give credence to a statement (unsupported by argument) that they were "inherently unfair". 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 Aug 7 08:02:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76M1fM02749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:01:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76M1Rt02738 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:01:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-202.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.202]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AAFE336BF8; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 00:01:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:36:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 tries to solve this problem in another way, saying that putting >down >> a pass card inadvertently does not make it a call. That is a very >inventive >> approach as well. But I think that it creates more problems than my >> solution. Law 25A is clear in describing such a pass as an inadvertent >CALL. >> And the appendix describing the use of bidding boxes shouldn't be read in >> this way either. >> >+=+ I do not believe it is 'inventive' to attempt >to read the regulation and understand what it >means. My question is put at a stage before >Law 25A applies. I am seeking to know >whether under the regulation the player has >made any call. I would agree that he has made >an inadvertent call if he has placed the bidding >card , released it, and made no observation of >his inadvertent mistake. Is this what happened, >if not, what did happen? The question I have is >whether the player did put the green card >down, as ton says, and if so where did he put >it down and when did he draw attention to the >fact that he had accidentally done something >he had not intended? Was it after his Pass >became an established call, or was it while >the words "with apparent intent" still had the >effect that the call had not been made? Ton >has responded on the basis that the call >has been made; I have merely said, "could we >just be clear about that, please?" and it has >to do with the effect of the regulation. > The Director does have the decision to >make as to whether the call has been made, >and the decision he makes will affect the >ruling he is to make regarding any change. >But in my view his ruling will either be that >no call has been made to be changed, or >alternatively that a call has been made >which is part of the legal auction and which >can be changed as Law 25 allows. In the >latter event, I can see no misinformation >such as the WBFLC has recognized up to >now; if we need to go outside of Law 25 >a more likely solution would be that >the change creates a withdrawn action >within the meaning of Law 16C - but this >is subject to the difficulty that the >preamble of 16C refers to retraction >after an infraction. > Thus I come to the personal conclusion >that we do not go outside of Law 25. If the >change is made under 25A it is made >without penalty, and everyone is free to >draw whatever information can be gained >from the occurrence; if it is a 25B change >then the player changing his call is >designated 'the offender' and there >is a restriction on the use of information >from the withdrawn call by the partner >of that offender. But once it is recognized >that the first call was inadvertent and >had no purpose I do not believe there is >available to any player any information >within the meaning of the laws by which >an opponent could be misinformed or >which the partner could use. I am just >totally surprised to find that ton thinks >differently. ~ G ~ +=+ > I am rather surprised that you still don't seem to have the slightest idea what the problem is we are discussing here for a week or so now. And it was not my initiative to start that discussion. I am too tired to try to explain it once more. May be David (no not Burn) is willing to take over. ton >[There is no official backing for my >point of view ; no pronouncement >has been made that would provide >a basis, for or against - we all have >to read the words for ourselves.] > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 7 08:02:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76M1bT02748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76M1Pt02736 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:01:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-202.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.202]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B9EE36BD9; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 00:01:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000101bffff0$e459fd80$cab4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:17:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> But I am also unable to see >>exactly what information he has >>conveyed to any other player at the >>table. The player pulled the green >>card from the box inadvertently or >>by accident? What kind of information >>can that give to any other player >>at the table? - that he is careless >>perhaps, or clumsy, but it says >>nothing about the auction or the >>cards in his hand. > > The information it gives to the next player is that this player is >passing. > > That is misinformation, since he is not passing. I should have used at most 8 words myself. (which I did now, if 8 is not considered to be a word. A very interesting area of problems, by the way). 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/ > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Should a Director act on something he sees accidntally? Please add >your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 08:02:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76M1lW02750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:01:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76M1Pt02737 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:01:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-202.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.202]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id EC3D336BB9; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 00:01:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000201bffff0$e4c7da80$cab4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 18:25:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >ton kooijman wrote: >> >>>> is it possible to >>>> deny (with convincing arguments) that the player taking out the pass card >>>> when he wanted to take a stop card gave misinformation? >>>> >>>+=+ I am having a slight difficulty here. Exactly >>>what is the information that we are asked to >>>agree the player has conveyed? If it is plain that >>>he was not thinking of passing, I am not clear >>>what the partner may learn from the accidental >>>removal of the pass card from the box. +=+ >> >>This discussion leads nowhere. If we can't agree on the fact that a pass >>card carries information and that somebody showing a pass card when he >>wanted to show something else gives misinformation I give up. David Stevenson replied: > The trouble with this is it is difficult to argue. To me it is so >obviously information given to the opponents that I cannot think of >anyway of saying so apart from "It is blindingly obvious" > > I believe that L21B applies to this situation. If it is not >completely obvious that it does, can we not just agree it is a >"reasonable interpretation"? When a player make an inadvertent call by >speaking, writing or producing a bidding card that gives information to >the opponents. When that information is wrong and he is allowed to >change it under L25A then L21B applies if the next player has called. > > EBU TDs have been taught this interpretation. Perhaps we should try >it on the EBU L&EC next! Goodness, couldn't you just ask Max Bavin to read his EBU stuff. And thank you for this message, I really thought being lost on the moon for the last week. Yes Grattan, I know, this is still no official WBF interpretation. Of course it isn't. But I feel off the moon again. 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 Aug 7 09:16:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76NFeX02823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:15:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76NFXt02819 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:15:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru ([194.190.217.41]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76NFIW10183; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:18 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <398DF10B.2BCF4850@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 03:13:17 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Willey CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: HUM (lo-o-ong) References: <000f01bfffc9$eb0bed40$c63467c0@isi.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7C6E6B071D6B39F73ECD3916" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7C6E6B071D6B39F73ECD3916 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------7C6E6B071D6B39F73ECD3916 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="HUM.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="HUM.txt" Hi all:) As I could understand - my position on the HUM matter is almost same as Grattan's. Patrick wrote: "Give me a break!! That's one week and a preparation that seems dramatically over the top. Some discussion in the car or plane on the way to the event is more than enough time to give you a perfectly adequate defence to any HUM system without eating into any personal time. Personally I seldom do even that. In NZ we have to deal with a number of different HUMS (in teams events at least) and I have found a 3 minute discussion at the start of the match to be more than adequate." Thomas Dehn wrote: "I need about two hours to set up a complete defense against an unknown HUM system. I then need one more hour to discuss the new defense with partner. If we were to play against HUMs frequently, we would probably be able to agree on a defense against an unknown HUM at the table, by reusing defense we have already developed and tested." OK:) I guess that both of you meant to prepare bidding defense. I agree that quite experienced player is possible in about Hour (or several hours) to construct necessary bidding agreements. But why did not you see that it was only less part of task? Cause in about 50% of boards you will make opening lead and then - have to play as defenders. Usually during the bidding one of HUM-user is captain and it was he who received information >From partner - and then made his final decision. And this captain will share with opponents all received info - but will not say anything about his hand. For resolving problems during play one should understand every different possible of bidding progress, every nuances - cause without them he cannot exclude great number of captain's hands. And for such a preparation one should spend weeks - analizing, discussing with partner etc. Then Thomas put an example of quite artificial sequence of bidding from so said "unfamiliar natural methods". Well, system is called "natural" when there are not too much similar and highly artificial sequences. And in all standard CC there is enough place for underlining such special possibilities. That's why I'd like to repeat my opinion that usage HUM so on bidding as on signalling - without giving opponents possibility to learn and understand them in advance - is rather unfair. Simple so called "full explanation" at the table is not enough. Best wishes Vitold --------------7C6E6B071D6B39F73ECD3916-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 09:32:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e76NWab02837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:32:36 +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 e76NWTt02833 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:32:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru ([194.190.217.41]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e76NWKW10596 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:32:20 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 03:30:13 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Tim West-meads wrote: > I wanted to establish agreement (or, I suppose, disagreement) to the > statement: > "There is nothing inherently unfair in encrypted signals". > I cannot think of a reason to bar their use in decent competitions > (others might) so I believed a re-analysis of their ban by the WBF et > al. to be in order. I *was* greatly concerned that Grattan seemed > prepared to give credence to a statement (unsupported by argument) > that they were "inherently unfair". In another thread ("HUM") I've already stated why I supported opinion that usage methods that had not been introduced to opponents in advance is unfair. To be short: users of encrypted signals (like another HUM) learnt this idea, discussed it with partner, then trained it during (let say) weeks. And then one would like to restrict his opponent only to "full disclosing" at the table - I guess that even experts should have time for making this job (to understand and make right conclusions) - more than minutes. Opponents have rights to make it in advance. Best wishes Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 10:06:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77063402864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:06:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7705vt02860 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:05:58 +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 UAA05835 for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 20:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA12980 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 20:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 20:05:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008070005.UAA12980@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as to meaning > which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? Not too simple, simply wrong. Anybody can fail to disclose, of course; nothing special about encrypted signals in that respect. But if everyone is playing by the rules, of course the meaning is fully disclosed. It's just that the meaning is one that declarer is unlikely to be able to use. Normal signals have the same problem, of course. I still remember an occasion when partner led a side-suit queen, playing Rusinow leads. Declarer asked, and I answered something like "If it's from a sequence of honors, we lead second high." As it happened, I was looking at the K in my hand and therefore knew partner had led a doubleton, but declarer had no way to know that. The ending was happy for us, unhappy for declarer; in fact, so unhappy he made an accusation along the lines of "You _knew_ that wasn't a Rusinow lead, didn't you?" Well, it has been a long time, and perhaps my explanation was inadequate, but I still don't think declarer had the right to know I was looking at that king. And without that knowledge, even the fullest possible explanation wouldn't have helped him. Do you think this was a "secret meaning?" Incidentally, encryption is also possible in the bidding. I believe many such methods would even be GCC-legal in the ACBL. (I am not sure they are playable, however. They might give up too much bidding space for a marginal gain on the opening lead.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 10:42:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e770dtE02887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:39:55 +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 e770dit02883 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:39:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.44] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Lax3-000Dr8-00; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 01:39:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c00007$f64baea0$2c5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Mark Abraham" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:14:56 +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: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > "disinterested" means unbiased or impartial > "uninterested" indicates absence of interest > -- +=+ 'disinterested' 1. without interest, not interested, unconcerned. (often regarded as a loose use). "Could a poet be disinterested in religion?" "How disinterested are they in all Worldly matters since they fling their Wealth and Riches into the Sea." 2. Not influenced by interest, impartial, unprejudiced. Not wholly right, Mark. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 10:43:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e770h5j02904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:43:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e770gxt02900 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:43:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.146] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Lb0H-0005ds-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:42:54 +0100 Message-ID: <007601c00008$64968ba0$92bd01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> <000201bfff7d$5b61e380$0f5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 01:42:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > But I am also unable to see > >exactly what information he has > >conveyed to any other player at the > >table. The player pulled the green > >card from the box inadvertently or > >by accident? What kind of information > >can that give to any other player > >at the table? - that he is careless > >perhaps, or clumsy, but it says > >nothing about the auction or the > >cards in his hand. > > The information it gives to the next player is that this player is > passing. > > That is misinformation, since he is not passing. Not so. The information it gives to the next player is that this player has passed. That is not misinformation, since in removing the pass card from his bidding box and placing it on the table, he has just passed. 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 Mon Aug 7 10:55:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e770tmL02935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e770tht02931 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:55:44 +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 KAA15486 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:55:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000807105511.0120d040@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:55:11 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs 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 rgb.anu.edu.au id e770tit02932 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >René Cohen wrote: >> > Oho! Spam on BLML! > > C'est terrible, n'est-ce-pas? Oui, Oui... :-( As some people have noted, I can allow only subscribers to post. However, there are quite a few souls out there who post from addresses other than their subscribed one... Who would be badly affected if I made the change? Who cares enough about this problem to want me to make the change ? (one spam incident in 4.5 years is not too bad). Should I just put a French filter on the list ? ;-) Note that anybody could still subscribe/send spam/unsubscribe, but that takes effort and intelligence which most spammers are delightfully lacking anyway. Let me know the mood of the list! 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 Mon Aug 7 11:33:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e771XRc02968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:33:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e771XLt02964 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.146] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13Lbmz-0001aE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 02:33:14 +0100 Message-ID: <008401c0000f$6cd3c060$92bd01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:32:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > ton kooijman wrote: > >This discussion leads nowhere. If we can't agree on the fact that a pass > >card carries information and that somebody showing a pass card when he > >wanted to show something else gives misinformation I give up. > > The trouble with this is it is difficult to argue. To me it is so > obviously information given to the opponents that I cannot think of > anyway of saying so apart from "It is blindingly obvious" I suppose that just about everything I wrote on the nature of "information" and its meaning within the Laws has been considered unworthy of comment. Fair enough. It may well have been. Perhaps we might try another angle. If there were no such thing as bidding boxes, a "clumsy" player intending to say "Stop - three clubs" might very well find himself saying instead "Pass - three clubs". What has this player opened, and how should his action be treated? I imagine that, since his "clumsiness" is now apparent to all and his original intent was clear, he would be considered to have opened three clubs at his turn to call. I would not have a particular problem with that, and neither - I presume - would anyone else. Here is a case of a player who has changed his inadvertent call of pass to his intended call of three clubs within the purview of Law 25A, and in a manner that is fully supported by this Law. But it seems to me that Ton and David have not seen further than this, and are basing their arguments on the "fact" that this (mutatis mutandis) is what our player has in actuality done. It is not. Suppose that instead our hero did as some slightly pompous players do, and intended to say "Stop - " then pause for a few seconds before delivering his pre-empt, as if to keep the whole table in suspense, before uttering the words "three clubs". And suppose that instead of the word "Stop", the word "Pass" emerged from his lips, whereat (during the pregnant pause) his LHO opened 2NT (or one spade, or three diamonds, or whatever). Would you now consider that our man was entitled to bid three clubs, without that being treated as a call out of rotation? Would you instead consider that our man was entitled to "change his call" to three clubs? Assuredly, I would not, and I suppose that even some of the pompous people out there might realise what they had done and not seek to open three clubs after all. How would a man be treated who, after this sequence of events, said: "You can't open one spade! I hadn't finished bidding when I said 'Pass' - I was going to open three clubs!"? > I believe that L21B applies to this situation. If it is not > completely obvious that it does, can we not just agree it is a > "reasonable interpretation"? It will do until a reasonable interpretation comes along. But a reasonable interpretation it most certainly is not. > EBU TDs have been taught this interpretation. Perhaps we should try > it on the EBU L&EC next! Well, I will abstain from the discussion. As I have already said many times, until Laws 25A and B are both amended to read in their entirety "A call once made may not be changed", the situation will remain hopeless. Note to Grattan: the incident which provoked this discussion happened when screens were not in use. Obviously, the position is completely different when screens and the accompanying bidding box regulations are in force. 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 Mon Aug 7 12:16:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772FgM03031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:43 +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 e772FNt03010 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:24 +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 13LcRd-0003oA-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:15 +0100 Message-ID: <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:48:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >Gentlemen, > >(I like that opening, -- so formal, so appropriate, so clear, so polite). I am not entirely certain that I would be totally impressed by it if I was Anne Jones, Karen Allison, Chyah Burghard or one of our other lady readers. >I 'd hate to continue what has been described by Ton as a fruitless argument >which consists of entrenched positions by different people (I don't agree >with him on that at all -- it appears to be a digging in of heels on his >part). > >I'm sure that Max Bavin knows what to do when confronted with this kind of >problem -- I'm just not sure that it is what Ton would like it to be. > >In MHO when it is clear that the pass was never intended, the LHO has the >information that the PASS WAS NEVER INTENDED. It interests me to note that >the words of the Law treating with actions taken by LHO when a player tries >to change his action are under 25B. This implies to me that correction of an >inadvertent "call" needs some immediacy to escape 25B action. Please explain >to me how LHOs actions could be considered under 25A. If the change of an >inadvertent call were to be considered apart from the action of LHO would >not the Law, as presently written, have included the effect upon actions by >LHO under 25A? >Therein lies part of what to me is what needs changing about the whole Law. >Rewrite 25A to be 25. Include those aspects of 25B that need to be included, >do away with 25B completely, and clearly indicate a time when inadvertency is >no longer accepted -- is my suggestion. > >Of course the ACBL edition of the Laws has neat headings for 25A called >"Immediate Correction of Inadvertency" and "Delayed or Purposeful Correction" >for 25B which I understand are not part of the Law. Probably they should be. Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? Ton and I permit a change under L21B because LHO was misinformed as to what you were doing. David B disagrees with this. But I do not understand Grattan or Kojak nor why they are trying to look at L25B in a situation where L25B does not apply. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidentally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 12:16:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772Fhx03034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:43 +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 e772FPt03011 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:26 +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 13LcRh-0003o9-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:59:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] re: HUM References: <3.0.3.32.20000806230809.007b47a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> <000d01bfffd6$f28bddc0$395408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01bfffd6$f28bddc0$395408c3@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: >+=+ Well, I would not want to take the allegation >personally. I will pass it on to the members of >the WBF Systems Committee that devised the >regulation - they include Jens Auken, Benito >Garozzo, Eric Kokish, Chip Martel, Jean-Paul >Meyer, Dan Morse, P.O. Sundelin. Some of these >must have voted for the policy - there are only >four other members of the committee.+=+ Well, we all know what votes are like. Kaplan face an Appeals Committee of seven, and lost. Five of them later came to him at various times to explain that they personally had voted for him, of course, but had been outvoted. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidentally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 12:16:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772Fqj03036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e772FMt03007 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:23 +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 13LcRd-0003oC-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:16 +0100 Message-ID: <7PrPChB9chj5EwS6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:56:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <200008070005.UAA12980@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200008070005.UAA12980@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Schoderb@aol.com >> How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as to meaning >> which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? > >Not too simple, simply wrong. Anybody can fail to disclose, of course; >nothing special about encrypted signals in that respect. But if >everyone is playing by the rules, of course the meaning is fully >disclosed. It's just that the meaning is one that declarer is unlikely >to be able to use. > >Normal signals have the same problem, of course. I still remember an >occasion when partner led a side-suit queen, playing Rusinow leads. >Declarer asked, and I answered something like "If it's from a sequence >of honors, we lead second high." As it happened, I was looking at the >K in my hand and therefore knew partner had led a doubleton, but >declarer had no way to know that. The ending was happy for us, unhappy >for declarer; in fact, so unhappy he made an accusation along the lines >of "You _knew_ that wasn't a Rusinow lead, didn't you?" Well, it has >been a long time, and perhaps my explanation was inadequate, but I still >don't think declarer had the right to know I was looking at that king. >And without that knowledge, even the fullest possible explanation >wouldn't have helped him. No, but he should have had the full meaning, shouldn't he? I have played Roman, Rusinow or Strong Ten leads for most of my career, and when explaining their meaning I always add "... unless it is singleton or doubleton." Now the player has Full disclosure so no complaint. >Do you think this was a "secret meaning?" No, but it does sound like an inadequate description. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidentally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 12:16:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772FbJ03025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e772FMt03008 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:24 +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 13LcRd-0003o9-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:37:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> <000201bfff7d$5b61e380$0f5608c3@dodona> <007601c00008$64968ba0$92bd01d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <007601c00008$64968ba0$92bd01d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > But I am also unable to see >> >exactly what information he has >> >conveyed to any other player at the >> >table. The player pulled the green >> >card from the box inadvertently or >> >by accident? What kind of information >> >can that give to any other player >> >at the table? - that he is careless >> >perhaps, or clumsy, but it says >> >nothing about the auction or the >> >cards in his hand. >> >> The information it gives to the next player is that this player is >> passing. >> >> That is misinformation, since he is not passing. > >Not so. The information it gives to the next player is that this >player has passed. That is not misinformation, since in removing the >pass card from his bidding box and placing it on the table, he has >just passed. Not so. If there is a later review of the bidding [after he has changed his call under L25A] you will find he has not passed. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidentally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 12:16:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772FgP03030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e772FLt03006 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:23 +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 13LcRd-0003oB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 02:53:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Tim West-meads wrote: >I cannot think of a reason to bar their use in decent competitions >(others might) so I believed a re-analysis of their ban by the WBF et >al. to be in order. I *was* greatly concerned that Grattan seemed >prepared to give credence to a statement (unsupported by argument) >that they were "inherently unfair". It is quite possible that Grattan has discussed their unfairness in the EBU L&EC, which has tended over the years to be an excellent forum with a high degree of understanding of problems. Certainly the ban on them in the EBU comes from before my time - and Grattan is a former Chairman of that Committee. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidentally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 12:16:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772FpG03035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e772FQt03013 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:15:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LcRi-0003o8-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:15:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 03:04:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Should the TD adjust when he is not asked to? 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 wrote: > > >This is a hypothetical case. I made it up >to clarify the position on the subject >mentioned in the Subject of this post (boy, >this could get confusing). >Suppose you are called by the WE players >- a pair of rookies. > >AKxx >Q >AKxx >J109x > >xx >AKxx >xxx >Axxx > > >The bidding took a somewhat bizarre course: > >N S >1NT 2C >2H 3NT >p > > The WE complain that opener's hand was not >balanced and expect that the NS side to be penalized >for just that. An inspection of the play reveals that >WE were not damaged in any way. You explain to >the defenders that opening 1NT on a 4441 hand >doesn't automatically lead to score adjustment, >read the appropriate Laws etc. They understand >and agree that the result should stand. > In the process, however, you manage to discover >what really happened during the bidding. North >opened 1NT - a judgement decision; nothing for >the TD to do here. South bid Stayman and North was then >asked about the meaning of South's bid. "A transfer >to hearts" responded North. Now South realized that >North misheard his bid and thought he had bid 2D >instead. Hence North's 2H rebid was not a response to >the Stayman enquiry but a simple completion of >a transfer. South didn't raise therefore to 4H but >tried 3NT instead. > This is a clear UI case but you see that >the WE is unable to see this and none of them >thinks anything wrong happened. This is not >the reason why you were called to the table. > > About ten years ago I read a book "Comments >on the Bridge Law" released by the Polish Bridge >Union. Being in Finland since a couple of weeks >I can neither recall the author nor check whether >this was a translation of an official WBF document >or not (I'm about 75% sure that it was but I >wouldn't bet my head on it). And a comment to one >of the examples was "A contestant who doesn't know >how he was damaged is not entitled to adjustment". >That would suggest that in the case I constructed >the TD should let the table result stand and not >adjust to 4H. Should he? No. The comment to which you refer does not appear in the Law book. It is correct to adjust for damage. The reason that people are a bit more cautious when a pair do not claim damage is that is some argument that there was no damage. There are many cases where a pair calls the TD about MI or UI when there is both. The TD will always consider both in determining his ruling - well he should, anyway. It is the TD's job to decide damage, not the players. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Should a Director act on something he sees accidentally? Please add your comment to the query in the 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 Aug 7 12:34:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e772YCD03080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:34:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e772Y8t03076 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:34:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.179]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000807023738.VKOL2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:37:38 +1200 Message-ID: <017801c00017$8e8e1d60$866860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:31:10 +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: > > > What does this have to do with banning, unfairness, etc?? > How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as to meaning > which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? > No No No No The agreement can be fully and freely available to the opponents (declarer) it is merely the conclusions that can be drawn from that agreement that are not available. 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 Aug 7 13:00:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77301x03109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:00:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e772xvt03101 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.93]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000807030328.VSNK2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:03:28 +1200 Message-ID: <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:56:19 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Vitold" > > In another thread ("HUM") I've already stated why I supported opinion > that usage methods that had not been introduced to opponents in advance > is unfair. To be short: users of encrypted signals (like another HUM) learnt > > this idea, discussed it with partner, then trained it during (let say) > weeks. > And then one would like to restrict his opponent only to "full disclosing" > at the table - I guess that even experts should have time for making this > job (to understand and make right conclusions) - more than minutes. > Opponents have rights to make it in advance. This is true of any uncommon method (which may be just uncommon in your own locality) natural or otherwise. I don't hear the same outcry against natural unusual treatments. And HUMs and Encrypted signals etc are natually less common because of the restrictions that are placed on where and when they can be played. So it is the regulations not the methods that necessarily make these methods difficult to defend against. That is, if players were free to play these methods we would come up against these methods more often and it wouldnt be a problem to play against them. I know personally in the case of HUMs that they would be more common if the regulations were more relaxed - yes even in NZ. 10 years ago when I first played in the National Interprovincial Championships my partner and I played a "forcing pass" system. In spite of enjoying playing these methods we quickly gave up this system because it was too much work for too few opportunities to play it. Patrick Carter in another thread suggested that a few minutes is all that is required to prepare against most HUMs. This is my experience as well. And I enjoy playing against such systems. I would be happy to hear an explaination at the table attitude if ... otherwise udca and don't think I would need more time than that to comprehend the opps methods. 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 Aug 7 15:00:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e774xkC03188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:59:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e774xft03184 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:59:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([210.55.47.97]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000807050441.FLZJ2856319.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:04:41 +1200 Message-ID: <01db01c0002b$d4673060$866860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200008042305.QAA31799@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Why no HUMs? Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:55:59 +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: "Adam Beneschan" >Not that *I* ever > would have played in such an event, but there might have been a fair > number of players who might have tried it and liked it if it had been > introduced at their local sectional. Maybe. But I'm just guessing. > These events while not common are reasonably popular here. And fun - even for one who would rather play a complicated system. 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 Aug 7 15:14:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e775DrN03210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:13:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e775Ddt03206 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:13:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack (p452-tnt8.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.139.198]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA15111 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:13:37 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000807171008.007bb5e0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:10:08 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: [BLML] re: HUMS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: I agree that quite experienced player is possible in about Hour (or several hours) to construct necessary bidding agreements. But why did not you see that it was only less part of task? Cause in about 50% of boards you will make opening lead and then - have to play as defenders. Usually during the bidding one of HUM-user is captain and it was he who received information >From partner - and then made his final decision. And this captain will share with opponents all received info - but will not say anything about his hand. For resolving problems during play one should understand every different possible of bidding progress, every nuances - cause without them he cannot exclude great number of captain's hands. And for such a preparation one should spend weeks - analizing, discussing with partner etc. -------------------------------------------------------------- The style of one hand being captain in a bidding sequence refers almost exclusively to relay style methods. Relay methods are most certainly not HUM. It is true that many HUM styles also incorporate relay methods, but it is completely possible to play a big club based system with essentially normal Precision openers and use a relay style system such as Symmetric Relay that was first propounded in the 1970s by Roy Kerr of New Zealand. I have played a relay style in both an Olympiad and a Bowl without anyone ever suggesting that it was HUM or suggesting that they needed to burn the midnight oil to understand our nuances. It is true that when the captain becomes declarer the defence has less clues, because it is dummy that has described their distribution, but understanding inferences about their system doesn't require a doctorate or a high level of study. An example: South opens a strong club and partner responds showing 9+ points with at least an Ace or 2 Kings. South relays a couple of times to find out that North has 5 Spades 3 Hearts 4 Diamonds and 1 Club. South then signs off in 3NT without asking further questions. Let's see what you can figure out about South's hand? (and don't ring your partner for a 3 hour brainstorming session) * * * * * * * * * * * Well, times up, how did you go? 1) South almost certainly doesn't have 5 hearts, because he would have chosen to play 4H and ruff his clubs in dummy. 2) South is unlikely to have 3 spades, although this is possible he might spurn a 5-3 fit if he had strong clubs 3) South has at least one club stop, He might have only 3 clubs or he might have 7 clubs, you can't tell, but he has at least one stop and it would be a mild surprise if he didn't have 2. 4) South probably doesn't have a lot extra for his 16+ club. Perhaps he could be in the 16-19 range or something like that, but with anything more he might have investigate slam possibilities further. While the captain of the relay will often seek to play the hand because that makes it a little tougher for the opponents to defend there are of course plenty of occasions on which the responding hand happens to bid the desired denomination first. In this case the defence is significantly better off than they might otherwise have been. Although the opening lead is made with the same information about the distribution of only one hand once you have made that lead you can see dummy and you now know the distribution of both hands. You don't need to worry about encrypted distributional signals!! You already know the full distribution around the table and you can use all signals for attitude and suit preference leaving declarer to work out the distribution for himself. Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 16:33:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e776WM003252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:32:22 +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 (f56.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e776Vot03248 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:31:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:31:39 -0700 Received: from 172.164.201.168 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.164.201.168] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 23:31:38 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2000 06:31:39.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[24799EA0:01C00039] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find >disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a >long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, >perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. You really should understand something before you go on record as disagreeing with it. > L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency >and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are >met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? It's possible that the Director has erred in allowing the initial change. > Ton and I permit a change under L21B because LHO was misinformed as to >what you were doing. David B disagrees with this. But I do not >understand Grattan or Kojak nor why they are trying to look at L25B in a >situation where L25B does not apply. Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh shit, I didn't mean to pass," should come to mind. The problem I have with this L21B argument is that it can only apply to LHO. What law gives you the authority to allow the initial opener to change his inadvertant pass? It's not L21B as the initial opener has no misinformation. It's not 25A since it's too late. And it's not 25B since LHO has already made a call. I also suspect that some people have gotten confused about which player you're allowing to change which call based on which law. There are two problems here, not one. -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 Aug 7 16:56:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e776tpW03278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:55:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e776tit03274 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:55:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA11811 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 07:55:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 07:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: Kojak wrote: > How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as > to meaning which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too > simple? Too incorrect. I think an explanation like "His two of diamonds shows either an even number of spades and discouraging diamonds OR an odd number of spades and encouragement for diamonds." Is typical of an "encrypted signal". Perhaps with the rider, "He expects me to know how many spades he has from the auction." The meaning is not secret, it is just that declarer currently lacks sufficient information about the rest of the hand to interpret the whole picture immediately (often the case with normal signals as well). Encrypted signals tend to have dual, and mutually opposing, meanings in situations where it is hoped the ambiguity will to work to the advantage of the defence. OK the word "tend" renders this inadequate as a stand-alone definition but maybe it can be used as a starting point if necessary. Maybe just stick words like these together with a couple of examples and say "if in doubt contact your SO, TDs/ACs will use these guidelines in rulings on whether a particular methodology is encrypted". After all they are like pornography - we know it when we see it and nobody can agree on whether we ought to ban it. Suggestion: ES should be permitted amongst consenting adults. 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 Aug 7 17:11:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e777BLn03301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:11:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e777BEt03297 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:05:54 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:05:52 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 07. August 2000 4:56 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: Schoderb@aol.com > >> How about accepting that encryption means partnership > agreement as to meaning > >> which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? > > > >Not too simple, simply wrong. Anybody can fail to disclose, > of course; > >nothing special about encrypted signals in that respect. But if > >everyone is playing by the rules, of course the meaning is fully > >disclosed. It's just that the meaning is one that declarer > is unlikely > >to be able to use. > > > >Normal signals have the same problem, of course. I still remember an > >occasion when partner led a side-suit queen, playing Rusinow leads. > >Declarer asked, and I answered something like "If it's from > a sequence > >of honors, we lead second high." As it happened, I was > looking at the > >K in my hand and therefore knew partner had led a doubleton, but > >declarer had no way to know that. The ending was happy for > us, unhappy > >for declarer; in fact, so unhappy he made an accusation > along the lines > >of "You _knew_ that wasn't a Rusinow lead, didn't you?" Well, it has > >been a long time, and perhaps my explanation was inadequate, > but I still > >don't think declarer had the right to know I was looking at > that king. > >And without that knowledge, even the fullest possible explanation > >wouldn't have helped him. > > No, but he should have had the full meaning, shouldn't he? I have > played Roman, Rusinow or Strong Ten leads for most of my career, and > when explaining their meaning I always add "... unless it is singleton > or doubleton." Now the player has Full disclosure so no complaint. You mean you think he wouldn't have been able to work out himself that the lead could be a singleton? Same goes to doubletons: you lead high from an honor doubleton no matter if you lead high or low from doubleton; it's a general bridge knowledge. If you want to "fully disclose" your lead system you should also add a few words about the possibility of a leading a king from, say, KJx, Kxxxx (coup de telescope) and so on. I think Steve's explanation was adequate. The "... unless it is singleton or doubleton." phrase looks to me like self defense against incompetent TD. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 17:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e777v2003333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:57:02 +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 e777uqt03326 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA27746 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:56:45 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, 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: > Tim West-meads wrote: > >I cannot think of a reason to bar their use in decent competitions > >(others might) so I believed a re-analysis of their ban by the WBF > et >al. to be in order. I *was* greatly concerned that Grattan > seemed >prepared to give credence to a statement (unsupported by > argument) >that they were "inherently unfair". > > It is quite possible that Grattan has discussed their unfairness > in the EBU L&EC, which has tended over the years to be an excellent > forum with a high degree of understanding of problems. Certainly > the ban on them in the EBU comes from before my time - and Grattan > is a former Chairman of that Committee. It is also quite possible that he has not, or did so when the L&EC was having a bad day. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 17:57:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e777v2F03334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:57:02 +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 e777uqt03325 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA27727 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:56:44 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again 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: <3.0.6.32.20000804153025.008be700@pop.ulb.ac.be> alain gottcheiner > >You cut him for the second rubber, agree weak (11.5-14) and > double, and >second hand (nv vs vul) he opens 1NT - do you alert? > > > >The bidding proceeds -P-P-X-2C, do you alert now? > > > >Opponents peter out in 3H. The auction, play to the first three > tricks, >dummy and your own holding mean you are now *sure* he > holds 9-10pts with 6 >clubs to AK - do you say anything? > > AG : of course you don't ! Your partner has no right to know you > have enough points to know he hasn't a genuine 1NT. The rules on disclosure mean that one *will* sometimes make UI available to partner. I expect my partners to deal with this in the proper manner. In the given situation both partner and I knew what was going on and declarer obviously didn't - I felt disclosure was probably required. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 18:17:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e778Gu003391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:16:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e778Ggt03387 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:16:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.56] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Li5J-000JeY-00; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:16:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Max Bavin" References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:10:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; David Burn ; Bridge Laws Cc: Max Bavin Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > I am rather surprised that you still don't seem to have the slightest idea > what the problem is we are discussing here for a week or so now. And it was > not my initiative to start that discussion. I am too tired to try to explain > it once more. May be David (no not Burn) is willing to take over. > > ton > +=+ All the time these exchanges of opinion have occurred I have had beside my PC a print-out of David Stevenson's email of 31st July. I was taken aback at what, to me, appeared the superficiality of certain aspects of the discussion. I try hard to look with fresh eyes at a problem, to avoid taking things for granted, and not to follow other people up a garden path. Let me go through the position once again, step by step. Don't bother to come with me, ton, as you are so tired. Dealer pulled out a Pass card when he was intending to pull out a Stop card. As soon as he realised it he tried to change it. As his partner had not called he was allowed, we are told, to change it under Law 25A. So I referred to the regulation that applied and noted that, like the WBF regulation, it contains the phrase "with apparent intent". I asked therefore whether the call had actually been made. This depends on the detail underlying the "as soon as he realised" bit - if the player thought he had a Stop card in his hand it seems uncertain that he would put it where he would place his calls, and quite probable that he would notice it was green before he had finished using it as a Stop card. It is possible therefore that what occurred did not constitute making a call within the terms of the regulation. That would be for the Director to decide. The "apparent intent" relates to the player's intention to make the call that is on the card he has pulled out. If no call was made then Law 25A is not applicable - you cannot change a call that does not exist. But of course, the Director may decide that the player realized what he had done only when this could no longer be the case. The Director decides the call has been selected in such a way that it is a call that has been made. If this is the case, the change of call is an action under Law 25. There is reference in the regulation to Law 25 and it is this law that now applies. The first question is whether the conditions exist for 25A to apply. It was an inadvertent call, the partner has not yet called, and we are left to struggle with the words "without pause for thought". The Director felt he could apply 25A. Since we note how LHO has had time to make a call this implies a somewhat remarkable timetable with Dealer not pausing for thought but LHO finding time to take out a bidding card. I am surprised that we are not in a 25B situation. At this stage the Director decides that Law 21B allows LHO to withdraw his call; to my mind this entails a distortion of the meaning hitherto of 'misinformation'. My reluctance to follow this line is nurtured by the fact that Dealer has made a prompt statement that his 'call' was inadvertently and unintentionally made - he has done this by definition according to the ruling 'without pause for thought' - and this would appear to me to have ruled out any misinformation. My inclination would be to look at the bidding box regulation governing the manner in which calls are made since it is difficult to imagine how all this could have happened without a clear, albeit unobtrusive, breach of its provisions by Dealer - an infraction that would lead the Director to Law 16C. But even if we follow the muddy path the Director has chosen, we are redirected to the paved surface of Law 16C by Law 21B. So what was the question? About UI? Well, what I believe is that there is no information from Dealer's inadvertent call, and every whichway information from LHO's withdrawn call is covered by Law 16C. OK, ton, you can return now from the soothing balm of a night's slumber. ~ 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 Aug 7 18:46:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e778kFD03447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f124.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e778jit03443 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:45:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 01:45:36 -0700 Received: from 172.164.201.168 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.164.201.168] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:45:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2000 08:45:36.0057 (UTC) FILETIME=[DAD8EA90:01C0004B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > >I cannot think of a reason to bar their use in decent competitions > > >(others might) so I believed a re-analysis of their ban by the WBF > > et >al. to be in order. I *was* greatly concerned that Grattan > > seemed >prepared to give credence to a statement (unsupported by > > argument) >that they were "inherently unfair". > > > > It is quite possible that Grattan has discussed their unfairness > > in the EBU L&EC, which has tended over the years to be an excellent > > forum with a high degree of understanding of problems. Certainly > > the ban on them in the EBU comes from before my time - and Grattan > > is a former Chairman of that Committee. > >It is also quite possible that he has not, or did so when the L&EC >was having a bad day. Some group of people could have met on a perfectly sunny day in Logicsville, have come to no decision on whether or not encrypted signals are fair, and still have placed a ban. We don't, and may never know the reason for the ban and it wouldn't have been a matter for the L&EC necessarily, no? Until we know better, we could assume that the ban on encrypted signals was made for reasons having nothing to do with whether or not they are fair. -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 Aug 7 20:09:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77A8WE03520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:08:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77A8Qt03516 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:08:27 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:07:18 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:35:10 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Tim West-meads [mailto:twm@cix.compulink.co.uk] > Sent: 07. August 2000 10:56 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Subject: Re: [BLML] Partnership Understanding - Again > > > In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000804153025.008be700@pop.ulb.ac.be> > alain gottcheiner > > > >You cut him for the second rubber, agree weak (11.5-14) and > > double, and >second hand (nv vs vul) he opens 1NT - do you alert? > > > > > >The bidding proceeds -P-P-X-2C, do you alert now? > > > > > >Opponents peter out in 3H. The auction, play to the first three > > tricks, >dummy and your own holding mean you are now *sure* he > > holds 9-10pts with 6 >clubs to AK - do you say anything? > > > > AG : of course you don't ! Your partner has no right to know you > > have enough points to know he hasn't a genuine 1NT. > > The rules on disclosure mean that one *will* sometimes make UI > available to partner. I expect my partners to deal with this in the > proper manner. In the given situation both partner and I knew what > was going on and declarer obviously didn't - I felt disclosure was > probably required. Only if you have _agreed_ that the 2C rebid shows a psyche (well, sort of) you have to disclose that to your opponents (and in that case alert not only this but also the 1NT opening). If you don't have such an agreement you don't have to "disclose" anything. The obligation to disclose cannot depend on the number of HCP you are dealt! On the very next you will receive 0 HCP and you will have no clue that your partner has psyched. Some years ago Marek Szymanowski played in Italy with a sponsor. They agreed to play a natural system. On the very first deal Szymanowski passed in 1st seat. His LHO passed to and his partner opened 1S in 3rd seat. At this point Szymanowski was asked about the meaning of the 1S call. "Natural, we play five card majors", he responded. Did he fulfill his obligation on full disclosure? Well, according to your reasoning he didn't because he was holding 11 (eleven) spades himself (and still decided to pass initially; BTW after his partner's 1S opening there was no way to play in spades on this deal)! He should have told the opponents that 1S was a psychic bid as he "knew what's going on and the opponents obviously didn't". Anyway your point of view was shared by Szymanowski's RHO who called the TD and claimed he had been misinformed. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 22:12:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77CBdi03652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:11:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77CBSt03648 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:11:29 +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 OAA25182; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:10:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA02073; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:11:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000807142017.008bf160@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 14:20:17 +0200 To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Should the TD adjust when he is not asked to? 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 19:27 6/08/00 +0300, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: AG : seems obvious (always dangerous to speak so !) : apply law 81 C 6 and rule as you seem fair; Perhaps AI, perhaps PP, here possibly both. >This is a hypothetical case. I made it up >to clarify the position on the subject >mentioned in the Subject of this post (boy, >this could get confusing). >Suppose you are called by the WE players >- a pair of rookies. > >AKxx >Q >AKxx >J109x > >xx >AKxx >xxx >Axxx > > >The bidding took a somewhat bizarre course: > >N S >1NT 2C >2H 3NT >p > > The WE complain that opener's hand was not >balanced and expect that the NS side to be penalized >for just that. An inspection of the play reveals that >WE were not damaged in any way. You explain to >the defenders that opening 1NT on a 4441 hand >doesn't automatically lead to score adjustment, >read the appropriate Laws etc. They understand >and agree that the result should stand. > In the process, however, you manage to discover >what really happened during the bidding. North >opened 1NT - a judgement decision; nothing for >the TD to do here. South bid Stayman and North was then >asked about the meaning of South's bid. "A transfer >to hearts" responded North. Now South realized that >North misheard his bid and thought he had bid 2D >instead. Hence North's 2H rebid was not a response to >the Stayman enquiry but a simple completion of >a transfer. South didn't raise therefore to 4H but >tried 3NT instead. > This is a clear UI case but you see that >the WE is unable to see this and none of them >thinks anything wrong happened. This is not >the reason why you were called to the table. > > About ten years ago I read a book "Comments >on the Bridge Law" released by the Polish Bridge >Union. Being in Finland since a couple of weeks >I can neither recall the author nor check whether >this was a translation of an official WBF document >or not (I'm about 75% sure that it was but I >wouldn't bet my head on it). And a comment to one >of the examples was "A contestant who doesn't know >how he was damaged is not entitled to adjustment". >That would suggest that in the case I constructed >the TD should let the table result stand and not >adjust to 4H. Should he? > > > Konrad Ciborowski >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 7 22:41:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Cebg03746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:40:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77CeTt03742 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:40:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 1.1e.90ce2c0 (4390); Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:39:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <1e.90ce2c0.26c00814@aol.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:39:48 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/6/00 10:18:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: Quoting Kojak: Of course the ACBL edition of the Laws has neat headings for 25A called > >"Immediate Correction of Inadvertency" and "Delayed or Purposeful > Correction" > >for 25B which I understand are not part of the Law. Probably they should > be. SNIP > Blakjak continues: > Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find > disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a > long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, > perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. > > L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency > and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are > met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? > > Ton and I permit a change under L21B because LHO was misinformed as to > what you were doing. David B disagrees with this. But I do not > understand Grattan or Kojak nor why they are trying to look at L25B in a > situation where L25B does not apply. > > -- Let me try once more, I'm not too tired. The conditions that you set, a pass, a call by LHO, a request for correction under 25A, and a correction under 25A -- are not possible, according to my reading of the Law. Since 25B specifically treats with a "delayed" change, and also gives specific procedure when this occurs, I don't see why you and Ton are applying 21B. Should the Law also say a "delayed inadvertent change?" What you are trying to effect for LHO is spelled out in 25B1 and/or 2 right now. What I'm looking for in my suggestion is that inadvertency have IN THE BODY OF THE LAW a limit set perhaps by the action of the LHO not the partner. Remember, to be judged inadvertent it does not mean that you have changed it, simply that you wish to change it. This action must occur with immediacy (before the LHO acts?). A sharp LHO might attempt to get a call in before the player gets to make his correction, but that is not the purpose of the Law. It appears to me that you and Ton might be attempting to avoid the (to me) odious application of 25B2(b) by using Law 21. Having said the above, I then read Todd's presentation and find myself better explained by it than I am able to do by myself. Humbling, but good for the soul -- and recommended to some others. And please remember that 25B came into being because a player tried to claim inadvertency when he in fact had received information AFTER he had purposefully selected his call and was denied that option by the Executive Committee sitting jointly with the Rules and Regulations Committee of the WBF. Bandaids to the rescue!!!!!!! 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 Mon Aug 7 23:02:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77D2Jh03792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:02:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77D29t03788 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:02:10 +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 e77D2HQ79365 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:02:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807084558.00a96a00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:04:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Why no HUMs? In-Reply-To: <200008042226.SAA15026@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:26 PM 8/4/00, Steve wrote: >In the context of the original post, "Classic Bridge" (note capital >letters) probably referred to the ACBL's attempt to introduce events >allowing very limited conventions and no alerts. The attempt died >almost as soon as it was born. (I think the first session -- at a >Nationals, no less -- had about two tables show up.) Possible >explanations include lack of publicity, bad choices of allowed >conventions, or simply that players don't want a game where conventions >are so severely limited. Classic Bridge seemed like a good idea on paper, and had a great deal of support in concept. But the devil was in the details. The ACBL Board of Directors appointed a small committee to draft the rules for it, and what they came up with had little to do with the original concept. The original notion was to have a game where the bidding would be almost entirely natural, but the players would have almost complete latitude to choose natural methods (e.g. any range of 1NT opening, forcing, limit or preemptive raises, inverted minors, etc.), but artificial bids would be restricted to a very few almost universally played conventions (e.g. Blackwood, Stayman, takeout doubles). But what the committe came up with was a warmed-over Yellow Card. Natural methods were severely restricted (a throwback to the bad old days when the ACBL used "conventional" as a synonym for "non-standard", and the list of allowed conventions was both longer than expected and rather idiosyncratic (I recall, for example, that it included "reverse Drury"), incorporating what appeared to be the specific preferences of the committee members. For instance, you were allowed to play 2NT over 1 of a major as an artificial forcing raise, but only if you played Jacoby shortness-showing rebids over it; the old-fashioned style in which rebids over the conventional 2NT are natural was not allowed. >What most players seem to want is "All the conventions I play are >allowed, and no other ones are." (Yes, I'm being facetious.) Steve is being facetious, but the committee took the statement seriously. Instead of writing the basic principles into the rules, they drafted a list of all the conventions they liked to play and barred the rest. The result was essentially a fixed system that everyone had to play, and bore no resemblance to the all-natural but otherwise free-form game that the Classic supporters had envisioned. And Steve correctly recalls the result. The ACBL scheduled Classic Bridge almost every day at one of the 1996 NABCs (San Francisco IIRC), but after failing to raise a full section for the first two or three Classic games on the schedule, they called the rest off. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 7 23:11:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77DArX03805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:10:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77DAZt03801 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:10:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e77DAMA02297; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:10:23 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e77DALD11048; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:10:21 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 13:10:21 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 OAA01535; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:10:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA23992; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:10:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:10:20 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200008071310.OAA23992@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: Schoderb@aol.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak, Continuing in the spirit of clarification. You write: > Let me try once more, I'm not too tired. The conditions that you set, a > pass, a call by LHO, a request for correction under 25A, and a correction > under 25A -- are not possible, according to my reading of the Law. Does this been that there are no circumstances where a L25A change of call may occur after LHO has called? Despite the words "until his partner makes a call" in L25A? 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 Mon Aug 7 23:42:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Dg1T03831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:42:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77Dfst03827 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:41:55 +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 e77Dg2E53806 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:42:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:44:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:26 PM 8/5/00, David wrote: > E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S > B 14 6 Pairs > 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 > J943 P 2H#2 P 2N > QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N > 852 QT973 AP > K2 A9763 > 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG > A73 #2 Negative > AKJ4 #3 Transfer > QJT > AKQ > > South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. >He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely >were playing transfers. > > North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and >believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he >wants to play there. > > It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only >one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. Why should this matter? The UI available to North was that South thought North held hearts rather than spades. That UI suggests that North might do better to bid 4S rather than pass 3NT, which he didn't do. Had he, we'd have rolled the contract back to 3NT, as that would be the non-suggested LA. Since North didn't make use of the UI he had (by bidding over 3NT), there was no UI-related infraction. > West led the H5 against 3NT and South made ten tricks: she said she >would have found a different lead if she had know 3H was a transfer. OK, now we need to rule on the MI; a whole different issue. I'll leave it to the AC to decide whether West might have led the S2, and whether this would have induced declarer to decline the heart finesse, resulting in only 9 tricks. > So, how did the redoubtable Malcolm Lunn rule? I don't know the chap, so I can't try to answer this one. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 00:37:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Eagi03857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 00:36:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77EaZt03853 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 00:36:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id QAA10846; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:35:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA17384; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:36:16 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000807164525.008ab100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 16:45:25 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:44 7/08/00 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:26 PM 8/5/00, David wrote: > >> E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S >> B 14 6 Pairs >> 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 >> J943 P 2H#2 P 2N >> QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N >> 852 QT973 AP >> K2 A9763 >> 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG >> A73 #2 Negative >> AKJ4 #3 Transfer >> QJT >> AKQ >> >> South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. >>He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely >>were playing transfers. > >Why should this matter? The UI available to North was that South thought >North held hearts rather than spades. That UI suggests that North might do >better to bid 4S rather than pass 3NT, which he didn't do. Had he, we'd >have rolled the contract back to 3NT, as that would be the non-suggested >LA. Since North didn't make use of the UI he had (by bidding over 3NT), >there was no UI-related infraction. AG : of course, but there is also another piece of UI : North knows that whatever the meaning of 3NT over 3H is, South didn't intend to show this. As an example, I use 3NT to show a 4-card raise with controls in all suits. If it is logical to bid 4H over this, and it nearly always would, and North passed 3NT nevertheless, an adjusted score is requested. Long live to the screens ! A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 01:00:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Ex4s03875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 00:59:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77Ewrt03871 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 00:58:54 +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 OAA09149 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:58:39 GMT Message-ID: <398ECEB7.3573E80C@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 16:59:03 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com a écrit : > > In a message dated 8/5/00 11:17:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > axman22@hotmail.com writes: > > > What does this have to do with banning, unfairness, etc?? > How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as to meaning > which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? a very great idea indeed, which resolves all the trouble: encryption now means some agreement with a hidden secret, so the conditionnal signals which initiated this thread can no more be called encrypted and are no more affected by the ban on "encrypted signals". Furthermore encrypted messages suit this definition: when 2 people want to exchange encrypted messages they previously agree to a secret code (usually two huge prime numbers) used to encrypt and decrypt the messages and they take care not to disclose their agreement to anybody else. JP Rocafort > > 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 01:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77FcMb03903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:38:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77FcCt03894 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:38:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-13.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.13]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C1EF436BAC; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:37:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004201c00084$8145eb20$0db5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:27:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David St. wrote: > >> Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find >> disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a >> long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, >> perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. >> >> L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency >> and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are >> met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? More specific: What is the status of the information coming from the withdrawn call made by LHO? >> >> Ton and I permit a change under L21B because LHO was misinformed as to >> what you were doing. David B disagrees with this. But I do not >> understand Grattan or Kojak nor why they are trying to look at L25B in a >> situation where L25B does not apply. Kojak replied: >> >> -- >Let me try once more, I'm not too tired. The conditions that you set, a >pass, a call by LHO, a request for correction under 25A, and a correction >under 25A -- are not possible, according to my reading of the Law. Since 25B >specifically treats with a "delayed" change, and also gives specific >procedure when this occurs, I don't see why you and Ton are applying 21B. We were presented with the facts as given by David: An INADVERTENT call (pass) after which LHO made a call. And a TD who decided that the inadvertent call could be changed in the call the player wanted to make. The question to be answered was what to do with LHO's call then? And my proposal was to apply 21B for that. If you deny the possibility that a player makes an inadvertent call and is still allowed to change it after LHO made a subsequent call, you have an easy job, refusing to answer the question. But don't accuse me of unwillingness to apply 25B, I like 25B. Do you? I politely answered a question. Now your statement that this case can't exist. I hope you have noticed that the lawmakers consider it possible to make an inadvertent call and not being able to change it before LHO has made a subsequent call. You introduce 'delay'. For what reason? The TD needs to be sure that the player did not have a pause for thought. A rather cryptic description, but we probably agree that the player should have in mind the call to be made and for some reason made another call (inadvertent). I consider it possible that this player discovers his mistake after LHO has called. And then the laws tell us to apply 25A. If you deny this possibility categorically my opinion is that you might deprive a player of his right to change a call and therewith infringe the laws. But once more: we started a new discussion here, not continuing '25A'. >Should the Law also say a "delayed inadvertent change?" What you are trying >to effect for LHO is spelled out in 25B1 and/or 2 right now. What I'm >looking for in my suggestion is that inadvertency have IN THE BODY OF THE LAW >a limit set perhaps by the action of the LHO not the partner. Remember, to >be judged inadvertent it does not mean that you have changed it, simply that >you wish to change it. This action must occur with immediacy WHY? (before the LHO >acts?). A sharp LHO might attempt to get a call in before the player gets to >make his correction, but that is not the purpose of the Law. It appears to me >that you and Ton might be attempting to avoid the (to me) odious application >of 25B2(b) by using Law 21. > >Having said the above, I then read Todd's presentation and find myself better >explained by it than I am able to do by myself. Humbling, but good for the >soul -- and recommended to some others. > >And please remember that 25B came into being because a player tried to claim >inadvertency when he in fact had received information AFTER he had >purposefully selected his call and was denied that option by the Executive >Committee sitting jointly with the Rules and Regulations Committee of the >WBF. Bandaids to the rescue!!!!!!! > I tried to correct this statement before. 25B as it reads now appeared in the laws in '97. But we had a 25B before, also before the incident you describe here occured. The new thing is the average minus score in stead of partner being barred form the bidding, together with the possibility to ask the TD to be allowed to change, which was my suggestion and not that of 'a player'. ton >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 Aug 8 01:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77FcLr03902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:38:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77FcCt03895 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:38:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-13.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.13]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2876336B92; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:37:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004301c00084$81edc3e0$0db5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Robin Barker" , Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:30:33 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Kojak, > >Continuing in the spirit of clarification. > >You write: >> Let me try once more, I'm not too tired. The conditions that you set, a >> pass, a call by LHO, a request for correction under 25A, and a correction >> under 25A -- are not possible, according to my reading of the Law. > >Does this been that there are no circumstances where a L25A change of call >may occur after LHO has called? Despite the words "until his partner >makes a call" in L25A? > >Robin Good question Robin; not according to the lawmakers. There might be circumstances where a law 25A change may occur after LHO has called. Putting down a pass card where you want to make a warning with a stop card could be such a case. 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 Tue Aug 8 01:56:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Fu0403927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:56:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77Ftqt03923 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:55:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa1s03a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.115.162] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LQDv-0005Bz-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:12:16 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c00087$a1e68d00$a27393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:52:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 07 August 2000 09:45 Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions > >From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > >In-Reply-To: > >DWS wrote: > > Until we know better, we could assume that the ban on > encrypted signals was made for reasons having nothing > to do with whether or not they are fair. > > -Todd > +=+ I would be quite confident that a major factor affecting the issue is the concept of the nature of the game, rather than 'fairness' as such. I just do not have a feel for whether we are at a stage to admit the method to front rank play, and I think it is 'fair' to note that front rank opinion is what has opted for the WBF ban. The suggestion that the 'vote' was distorted in some way is wide of the mark - I doubt if more than maybe two of those I named voted with the minority against the ban, it might only be one. I do not have exact information, only observation to guide me. ~ 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 Aug 8 01:56:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77FuiE03939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:56:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77FuAt03933 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 01:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa1s03a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.115.162] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LQDu-0005Bz-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 14:12:14 +0100 Message-ID: <003601c00087$a0eac7e0$a27393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:26:44 +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: Sent: 07 August 2000 07:31 Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > >From: David Stevenson > ------------------- \x/ ------------------ > > > L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency > >and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are > >met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? > > It's possible that the Director has erred in allowing the initial > change. > -------------------- \x/ ----------------- > > Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, > either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer > has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh s***, I didn't mean to > pass," should come to mind. > > The problem I have with this L21B argument is that it can only apply to > LHO. What law gives you the authority to allow the initial opener to change > his inadvertent pass? It's not L21B as the initial opener has no > misinformation. It's not 25A since it's too late. And it's not 25B since > LHO has already made a call. > +=+ Hi Todd! I have no estimate of the number of occasions that I have felt you were on my wavelength. Not always, I suspect. But you do seem to have picked up from my tortuous prose the matters that interested me in the Director's actions. It seemed to me that the Director had picked his way carefully through the thorn bushes to the place where he wanted to be, and having arrived there suddenly had doubts what to do about it. So what I did was to ask raise questions that would test the clarity of his thinking. Effectively what he has done is to rule that the call had been made and it was not too late for application of 25A. I hinted that this was a very small window through which he had opportunity to fall between two stools - (a) 'no call made' and (b) 'go to 25B'. I think it pays to be sceptical when contemplating improbability, if not wholly incredulous. David S. got lost when I referred to 25B, but you have understood that if the Director ought to have come to 25B not only has the call been made but it will stay that way. If I was looking at an appeal against this ruling a lively question in my mind would be one of Director error, but if the Chief Director were to satisfy me that the gate to 25A had been open I would personally have no difficulty in concluding then that no UI was available from Dealer to partner and that LHO's withdrawn action was protected under 16C. I was seeking to challenge inflexible preconception and avoid dismissive impatience. But there I go: when the drawbridge is up challenges are inconvenient. ~ 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 Aug 8 02:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77GDsg03986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:13:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77GDit03982 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:13:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5050 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2000 16:11:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.6.67) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 7 Aug 2000 16:11:37 -0000 Message-ID: <398EE082.7D5306B0@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 19:14:58 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Buchhorn CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs References: <3.0.32.20000807105511.0120d040@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk NO NO NO Pas un filtres francais ...... Leave it like that ...I think we can stand one nut in 3 years.... Dany Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >René Cohen wrote: > >> > > Oho! Spam on BLML! > > > > C'est terrible, n'est-ce-pas? > > Oui, Oui... :-( > > As some people have noted, I can allow only subscribers to post. However, > there are quite a few souls out there who post from addresses other than > their subscribed one... > > Who would be badly affected if I made the change? Who cares enough about > this problem to want me to make the change ? (one spam incident in 4.5 > years is not too bad). Should I just put a French filter on the list ? ;-) > > Note that anybody could still subscribe/send spam/unsubscribe, but that > takes effort and intelligence which most spammers are delightfully lacking > anyway. > > Let me know the mood of the list! > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 03:02:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H1bq04036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H1Ut04032 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd2s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.211] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LREz-0006TM-00; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 15:17:25 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01c00090$bc543620$a27393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Robin Barker" , Cc: References: <004301c00084$81edc3e0$0db5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:57:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Robin Barker ; Cc: Sent: 07 August 2000 16:30 Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > >Kojak, > > > >Continuing in the spirit of clarification. > > > >You write: > >> Let me try once more, I'm not too tired. The conditions that you set, a > >> pass, a call by LHO, a request for correction under 25A, and a correction > >> under 25A -- are not possible, according to my reading of the Law. > > > >Does this been that there are no circumstances where a L25A change of call > >may occur after LHO has called? Despite the words "until his partner > >makes a call" in L25A? > > > >Robin > > > Good question Robin; not according to the lawmakers. There might be > circumstances where a law 25A change may occur after LHO has called. Putting > down a pass card where you want to make a warning with a stop card could be > such a case. > > ton > +=+ Indeed, that is so. The Director would examine the facts closely and make a ruling on the point. He would need a very clear ascertainment of the exact course of events, because many would suspect that when Dealer has had time to quit the pass card and LHO has had time to put a bidding card down also, the probability of 'immediacy' is extremely low. But we should never say 'impossible' - even if we must next ask ourselves when exactly it was that the mistake was noticed and spoken about. I think I have said before that the progress from the point where the Pass must be deemed a call made, to the point when 'without pause for thought' ceases to apply, would normally be almost instantaneous - so the Director should expect to be questioned about the ascertainment of facts. ~ 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 Aug 8 03:05:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H4n604048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:04:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77H4gt04044 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:04:43 +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 TAA12945; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:03:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id TAA05812; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:04:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000807191332.008617a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 19:13:32 +0200 To: "ton kooijman" , , , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Cc: In-Reply-To: <004201c00084$8145eb20$0db5f1c3@kooijman> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:27 7/08/00 +0200, ton kooijman wrote: >We were presented with the facts as given by David: An INADVERTENT call >(pass) after which LHO made a call. And a TD who decided that the >inadvertent call could be changed in the call the player wanted to make. The >question to be answered was what to do with LHO's call then? And my proposal >was to apply 21B for that. AG : reasonable enough, but somewhat out-of-subject for law 21B, which speaks about misinformation, of which there was none. The conclusion, then, is that we'dlike to amend rule 25A so that it now has two parts : 1. (the actual one) and 2. (the right for the following player etc.), like law 21B. > >Now your statement that this case can't exist. I hope you have noticed that >the lawmakers consider it possible to make an inadvertent call and not being >able to change it before LHO has made a subsequent call. You introduce >'delay'. For what reason? The TD needs to be sure that the player did not >have a pause for thought. A rather cryptic description, but we probably >agree that the player should have in mind the call to be made and for some >reason made another call (inadvertent). I consider it possible that this >player discovers his mistake after LHO has called. AG : yes of course ; for example, North pulls out (wrongly) his pass card, then East passes, and North says : 'it's not your turn, whoops ... what's that pass ?' In 'Appeals Committee' (edited by The Bridge World), it is clearly shown how and why the length of the delay is not a deciding factor. Mind quickness is not the same for all players. Playing a club system, you say : '1 spade ... 1 club' in a split second ; you probably forgot your system, then remembered it. Playing notihg unusual, you say : 'A heart ... oh sorry ... I wanted ... I really meant ... 1 spade' ; you could well have experimented a lapse of the tongue. The same is true with bidding boxes, isn't it ? And there is the case where North realizes what happens, and pulls his TD card (not knowing his rights in that particular case) while East bids or passes at the same time. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 03:05:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H5I204060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:05:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H5Bt04056 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h206.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.206]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H54X07507 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:05:04 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <398EEBE1.BDFE0977@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:03:31 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] re: HUMS References: <3.0.3.32.20000807171008.007bb5e0@pop.ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Patrick wrote: > It is true that when the captain becomes declarer the defence has > less clues, because it is dummy that has described their distribution, > but understanding inferences about their system doesn't require a > doctorate or a high level of study. An example: > South opens a strong club and partner responds showing 9+ points > with at least an Ace or 2 Kings. South relays a couple of times > to find out that North has 5 Spades 3 Hearts 4 Diamonds and 1 Club. > South then signs off in 3NT without asking further questions. > Let's see what you can figure out about South's hand? (and don't > ring your partner for a 3 hour brainstorming session) > > 1) South almost certainly doesn't have 5 hearts, because he would > have chosen to play 4H and ruff his clubs in dummy. > 2) South is unlikely to have 3 spades, although this is possible > he might spurn a 5-3 fit if he had strong clubs > 3) South has at least one club stop, He might have only 3 clubs or he > might have 7 clubs, you can't tell, but he has at least one stop > and it would be a mild surprise if he didn't have 2. > 4) South probably doesn't have a lot extra for his 16+ club. Perhaps > he could be in the 16-19 range or something like that, but with > anything more he might have investigate slam possibilities further. > In this case the defence is significantly better off than they might > otherwise have been. Although the opening lead is made with the same > information about the distribution of only one hand once you have > made that lead you can see dummy and you now know the distribution > of both hands. You don't need to worry about encrypted distributional > signals!! You already know the full distribution around the table and > you can use all signals for attitude and suit preference leaving > declarer to work out the distribution for himself. Really - I do not want to discuss HUM's and their features - it is BLML, not training (or teacher's) camp. Moreover - I am not expert at all, but Patrick's analise is not right (or is not right in full). As defender I would need much more information: 1. Why did he use relays? What did it mean if he had bid not-relay-bid (at once, after first relay, after secon relay)? Would they natural - or artificial? 2. How is rebids on their relays - natural or artificial? (I meant - responder bids his suits natural or, for example, by steps). How do they fight for to bid contract from the best hand? 3. At this example - who would be Declarer in Spade contrat? In Heart? In Diamond? In NT? Only after receiving these (and several similar) questions I will make conclusions about relayer's distribution. Am I right, Patrick? Or is your analise rather too light? And it may happen that ALL Patrick's conclusions are WRONG:) Really "good" HUMs care for declarer's hand - so responder bids artificially, captain usually becomes a Declarer. So - last indention in Patrick's post will almost never take part for HUM-users. And not too rare - for natural (and seminatural) relay-oriented system. But that's why they are not called HUM:) Sorry for this deviation from main stream - we are discussing the Laws and regulations. I tried to show that even so simple example (as Patrick introdused) may provide to almost obvious conclusion: opponents need be informed about HUM beforehand, for preparing. Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 03:08:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H7p804098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H7Xt04071 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:34 +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 13LqN6-0006tT-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:07:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:33:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@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: > Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find >disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a >long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, >perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. Note: by basic argument, I do not mean the original question posed. I assumed that a matter we had discussed here in the past and was accepted by various and sundry SOs would be a matter of agreement, and I included it in another question. The actual question under discussion is whether, if LHO is allowed to change his call, it is UI or AI. -- 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 Aug 8 03:08:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H7uF04100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H7Zt04076 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:36 +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 13LqN6-0006tW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:07:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:52:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Konrad wrote: > You mean you think he wouldn't have been able to work out himself that >the lead could be a singleton? Same goes to doubletons: you lead high >from an honor doubleton no matter if you lead high or low from >doubleton; it's a general bridge knowledge. > If you want to "fully disclose" your lead system you should also >add a few words about the possibility of a leading a king from, say, >KJx, Kxxxx (coup de telescope) and so on. I think Steve's explanation >was adequate. The "... unless it is singleton or doubleton." phrase >looks to me like self defense against incompetent TD. I can assure you, Konrad, that I don't give a damn about the TD when I am playing. My worry is to explain my methods adequately to the opponents for *their* sake, not because of any ruling that may or may not occur. The problem with general bridge knowledge is that it differs from player to player, and if I do not tell them it could be a doubleton [ok, the singleton is too obvious] then I have misinformed them: I would be very annoyed with myself if they did not allow for the possibility of a doubleton and I had not warned them. I do not think, Konrad, that when we are discussing Full Disclosure, that we should care about what the TD thinks or how he will rule: I think we should get it right for the benefit of the opposing 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 03:08:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H7uq04099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H7Yt04074 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:34 +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 13LqN6-0006tV-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:07:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:46:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> In-Reply-To: <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >From: "Vitold" >> >> In another thread ("HUM") I've already stated why I supported opinion >> that usage methods that had not been introduced to opponents in advance >> is unfair. To be short: users of encrypted signals (like another HUM) >learnt >> >> this idea, discussed it with partner, then trained it during (let say) >> weeks. >> And then one would like to restrict his opponent only to "full disclosing" >> at the table - I guess that even experts should have time for making this >> job (to understand and make right conclusions) - more than minutes. >> Opponents have rights to make it in advance. > >This is true of any uncommon method (which may be just uncommon in your own >locality) natural or otherwise. > >I don't hear the same outcry against natural unusual treatments. That is because of your geographical location. It appears that your Zone generally have come up with a relaxed approach to methods that may be played. People that do not like it are presumably no longer playing bridge. In many parts of the world - it is suggested that North America is the most extreme - there is a fair sized number of people who believe that any convention or natural treatment should be allowed if they or their friends play it, but no other methods should be permitted. That includes an objection from a local trouble-maker who objected in a soi- disant friendly event to her opponents playing a 2D opening as a weak opening with diamonds. -- 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 Aug 8 03:08:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H7wY04101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H7Yt04075 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LqN6-0006tU-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:07:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:41:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find >>disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a >>long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, >>perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. > > You really should understand something before you go on record as >disagreeing with it. I should? well, you often don't, so I was merely following your example. >> L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency >>and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are >>met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? > > It's possible that the Director has erred in allowing the initial >change. Of course. How is that relevant to any of the questions being asked? It is also possible that they were playing the wrong board. the relevance is similar. >> Ton and I permit a change under L21B because LHO was misinformed as to >>what you were doing. David B disagrees with this. But I do not >>understand Grattan or Kojak nor why they are trying to look at L25B in a >>situation where L25B does not apply. > > Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, >either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer >has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh shit, I didn't mean to >pass," should come to mind. Oh, well, if that is your case, then I am really rather surprised. The interpretation that the ACBL, the EBU, the WBU, the EBL, the Russian BL all seem to have accepted is that the pause for thought is from the realisation of the mistake. It is not obvious to me how you can pause **"for thought"** about something you have not realised. > The problem I have with this L21B argument is that it can only apply to >LHO. What law gives you the authority to allow the initial opener to change >his inadvertant pass? It's not L21B as the initial opener has no >misinformation. It's not 25A since it's too late. And it's not 25B since >LHO has already made a call. It is L25A and it is not too late. > I also suspect that some people have gotten confused about which player >you're allowing to change which call based on which law. There are two >problems here, not one. Oh? You put a pass card down, meaning it as a Stop card. You then make your actual Skip Bid. Before you actually manage to get your Skip Bid out of the box, LHO has called. You realise you have made a mistake as you put your Skip Bid down and see your Stop card was the wrong colour. you immediately comment - thus there was no pause for thought. That is the basic problem, and everyone I know is allowing the pass card to be changed to a Stop card under L25A, allowing LHO to change his call under L21B. I asked whether LHO's call is UI or AI. -- 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 Aug 8 03:08:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H7vD04102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H7bt04083 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:38 +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 13LqNA-0006tT-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:07:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:53:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Some group of people could have met on a perfectly sunny day in >Logicsville, have come to no decision on whether or not encrypted signals >are fair, and still have placed a ban. We don't, and may never know the >reason for the ban and it wouldn't have been a matter for the L&EC >necessarily, no? Until we know better, we could assume that the ban on >encrypted signals was made for reasons having nothing to do with whether or >not they are fair. No. That is not the way things are done in England. -- 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 Aug 8 03:08:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77H80904103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:08:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77H7Zt04078 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:07:36 +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 13LqN6-0006tS-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:07:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:30:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@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================================= >"So long as a man rides his hobby-horse >peaceably and quietly along the king's highway, >and neither compels you or me to get up behind >him - pray, Sir, what have either you or I to >do with it? " - Tristram Shandy. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: ton kooijman >To: Grattan Endicott ; >David Burn ; > Bridge Laws >Cc: Max Bavin >Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 5:36 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > >> >> I am rather surprised that you still don't seem to have the slightest idea >> what the problem is we are discussing here for a week or so now. And it >was >> not my initiative to start that discussion. I am too tired to try to >explain >> it once more. May be David (no not Burn) is willing to take over. >> >> ton >> >+=+ All the time these exchanges of opinion >have occurred I have had beside my PC a >print-out of David Stevenson's email of >31st July. I was taken aback at what, to >me, appeared the superficiality of certain >aspects of the discussion. I try hard to look >with fresh eyes at a problem, to avoid taking >things for granted, and not to follow other >people up a garden path. > Let me go through the position once >again, step by step. Don't bother to come >with me, ton, as you are so tired. > Dealer pulled out a Pass card when >he was intending to pull out a Stop card. >As soon as he realised it he tried to >change it. As his partner had not called >he was allowed, we are told, to change it >under Law 25A. So I referred to the >regulation that applied and noted that, >like the WBF regulation, it contains the >phrase "with apparent intent". I asked >therefore whether the call had actually >been made. This depends on the detail >underlying the "as soon as he realised" >bit - if the player thought he had a Stop >card in his hand it seems uncertain that >he would put it where he would place >his calls, and quite probable that he >would notice it was green before he >had finished using it as a Stop card. It >is possible therefore that what occurred >did not constitute making a call within >the terms of the regulation. That would >be for the Director to decide. > >The "apparent intent" relates to the >player's intention to make the call that is >on the card he has pulled out. If no call >was made then Law 25A is not applicable > - you cannot change a call that does not >exist. > > But of course, the Director may >decide that the player realized what he >had done only when this could no longer be >the case. The Director decides the call has >been selected in such a way that it is a call >that has been made. If this is the case, the >change of call is an action under Law 25. There >is reference in the regulation to Law 25 and it >is this law that now applies. The first question >is whether the conditions exist for 25A to >apply. It was an inadvertent call, the partner >has not yet called, and we are left to struggle >with the words "without pause for thought". >The Director felt he could apply 25A. Since we >note how LHO has had time to make a call this >implies a somewhat remarkable timetable with >Dealer not pausing for thought but LHO finding >time to take out a bidding card. I am surprised >that we are not in a 25B situation. I am surprised that you are surprised. This is a situation normal enough to have occurred at my table perpetrated by an opponent maybe three times in the last six months: if that is the frequency with me playing, then presumably there are tens of thousands of occurrences daily around the world. The player pulls out what he believes to be a Stop card and puts it on the table. He then pulls out his actual call, and as he puts that on the table he notices the Stop card is the wrong colour. He then attempts to change that immediately. It is a common occurrence and I cannot see any reason why the requirements of L25A are not met. >At this stage the Director decides that >Law 21B allows LHO to withdraw his call; to >my mind this entails a distortion of the >meaning hitherto of 'misinformation'. My >reluctance to follow this line is nurtured >by the fact that Dealer has made a prompt >statement that his 'call' was inadvertently >and unintentionally made - he has done this >by definition according to the ruling 'without >pause for thought' - and this would appear >to me to have ruled out any misinformation. I do not understand this paragraph at all. He gave his opponents some information - that he was passing at this turn - which turned out to be false. Thus it is misinformation and L21B applies. >My inclination would be to look at the >bidding box regulation governing the manner >in which calls are made since it is difficult >to imagine how all this could have happened >without a clear, albeit unobtrusive, breach >of its provisions by Dealer - an infraction that >would lead the Director to Law 16C. While L25A is rarer without BBs, it certainly happens, and I do not think we want BB regs to decide how to deal with LHO's spoken call after an inadvertent spoken call that is allowed to be changed. > But even >if we follow the muddy path the Director has >chosen, we are redirected to the paved >surface of Law 16C by Law 21B. Why muddy? We have a common situation, a Law that most people find clear, and an interpretation that North American and Europe do not disagree on, namely that without pause for thought is from the moment of realisation. Where is the difficulty? > So what was the question? About UI? Well, >what I believe is that there is no information >from Dealer's inadvertent call, and every >whichway information from LHO's withdrawn >call is covered by Law 16C. So you have spent many paragraphs considering the matters that have been discussed and agreed many times at many levels, and five lines answering the original question without explanation. Fair enough. -- 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 Aug 8 03:24:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77HONg04159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:24:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77HOFt04155 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:24:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h206.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.206]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77HBAX07932 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:11:11 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <398EED52.795D54E8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:09:38 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Wayne Burrows wrote: > This is true of any uncommon method (which may be just uncommon in your own > locality) natural or otherwise. > I don't hear the same outcry against natural unusual treatments. Because in natural systems there not too much such "unusual" treatments - and there are enough place in CC for discribing them. On the other hand HUMs consist almost from similar "unusual" treatments and needs much more time for understanding - even at least at level of main principles. > And HUMs and Encrypted signals etc are natually less common because of the > restrictions that are placed on where and when they can be played. Quite the contrary:) Your Federation may allow its usage. > Patrick Carter in another thread suggested that a few minutes is all that is > required to prepare against most HUMs. This is my experience as well. And > I enjoy playing against such systems. Well - but my personal opinion is that it is your personal opinion:) Cause you do want use it on International level. Not only for enjoying, I guess? Then - WBF needs to protect rights of opponents - for their home-made preparation. For ensuring fair struggle - by means of best agreements (fully understood by opponents), player's skill and some luck:) Best wishes Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 03:29:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77HTeZ04174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:29:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77HTYt04170 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:29:35 +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 KAA20879 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:20:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] re: HUMS Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:30:58 -0400 Message-ID: <001801c00095$3f72f740$23c3e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" 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: <398EEBE1.BDFE0977@elnet.msk.ru> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pardon me for what might be an oversimplication, however ... The core to Vitold's argument with respect to HUMs boils down to inferences. Vitold is arguing that pairs playing against a HUM will not be fully informed about all of the negative inference available throughout an auction. The problem with this argument is that it is in no way specific to a HUM. Case in point. The vast majority of tournament players in the United States are ONLY experienced with 5 card major systems. Most of them have no real understanding of standard 4 card major systems. let alone anything as "incomprehensible" as Polish Club. The inferences available in many bread and butter auctions will be completely different playing Acol than if playing Standard American. If we follow Vitold's logic, then we should ban 4 card majors here in the US since the average tournament player is not equipped to understand 4 card major practictioner's auctions. I you do not beleive that we should ban Acol here in the US, then you are (essentially) saying there is some other other factor above and beyond familiarity/negative inferences that is the prime factor in determining what systems should be allowed. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOY7yUSGkJ7YU62vZEQLp4gCeJLJDELoMb4NKcfuP8ECIYRl64ZYAoJ/C sMRgHennOS9gYM1SKoyF7MQb =Ghnk -----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 Aug 8 03:39:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Hcvk04193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:38:57 +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-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 e77Hcot04188 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:38:51 +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 13LqrN-000EEi-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:38:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:38:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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 , Todd Zimnoch writes snip > > Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, >either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer >has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh shit, I didn't mean to >pass," should come to mind. > there's no doubt in my mind that the Wendy Coup applies here. You pull a stop card with intent to bid 3C, Wendy walks past and then you discover that: 1) LHO has called 2) your stop card is green 25A applies. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 03:39:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Hd4V04198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:39:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77Hcst04192 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:38:55 +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 13LqrN-000EEh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:38:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:33:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <003d01bfff15$33a7e320$1fb5f1c3@kooijman> <000201bfff7d$5b61e380$0f5608c3@dodona> <007601c00008$64968ba0$92bd01d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <007601c00008$64968ba0$92bd01d5@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007601c00008$64968ba0$92bd01d5@D457300>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > But I am also unable to see >> >exactly what information he has >> >conveyed to any other player at the >> >table. The player pulled the green >> >card from the box inadvertently or >> >by accident? What kind of information >> >can that give to any other player >> >at the table? - that he is careless >> >perhaps, or clumsy, but it says >> >nothing about the auction or the >> >cards in his hand. >> >> The information it gives to the next player is that this player is >> passing. >> >> That is misinformation, since he is not passing. > >Not so. The information it gives to the next player is that this >player has passed. That is not misinformation, since in removing the >pass card from his bidding box and placing it on the table, he has >just passed. > Only if it was his apparent intention to do so. He has only passed once his partner has called. See 25A. Or if he intended to pass he can still change his mind until LHO calls but that's a different matter cheers john >David Burn >London, England -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 04:02:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77I22x04249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:02:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77I1nt04235 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:01:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-56.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.56]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12517 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:01:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398EA58F.A27FE483@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 14:03:27 +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: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Grattan, but you take a long time to explain in detail that you have not yet understood the problem. Therefor I snip everything. Before 1995, L25A had no time limit. I once allowed a change of call under L25A after dummy came down. No I don't know what rules I should have applied, but I did something sensible. Now, L25A has a time limit. Until partner has called. This implies that there are cases possible where LHO has already called, and we are still in a position to apply L25A. And that is the situation. No more, no less. There has been a call (1) There has been a call by LHO (2) The player now realises that call (1) was made under all the circumstances that make a change under L25A allowable, and the TD agrees with this and allows the change. There is now a new call (3) What happens to call (2) ? Nowhere is this said in the laws, but we all agree that the only sensible solution is to apply L21B1 on this. According to L16C1, the original call (2) is AI to the partner of the player that made it. I believe the original question was whether or not we apply L16C2 to the other pair - are they offending ? Yes I believe they are and the withdrawn call (2) is UI to the others. -- 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 Aug 8 04:02:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77I24H04252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:02:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77I1pt04236 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:01:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-56.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.56]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12529 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:01:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398EA652.EEFF0393@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 14:06:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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: > > > Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, > either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer > has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh shit, I didn't mean to > pass," should come to mind. > Sorry Todd, but it is irrelevant what you think about this particular case. L25A allows corrections "until partner has called". So corrections under L25A are possible after LHO has called. That's the problem we are with here. The TD has decided that L25A applies, and there is no use disagreeing with him. The problem exists and won't go away simply because you say it cannot happen. It can happen. -- 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 Aug 8 04:02:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77I2C604254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:02:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77I1vt04247 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:01:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-56.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.56]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12535 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:01:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398EAA28.EFB9E323@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 14:23:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <200008070005.UAA12980@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > don't think declarer had the right to know I was looking at that king. > And without that knowledge, even the fullest possible explanation > wouldn't have helped him. > > Do you think this was a "secret meaning?" > > Incidentally, encryption is also possible in the bidding. I believe > many such methods would even be GCC-legal in the ACBL. (I am not sure > they are playable, however. They might give up too much bidding space > for a marginal gain on the opening lead.) Steve touches on a special point when discussing encrypted signals (sorry I used cryptic once before - I was not trying to encrypt the issue). ES (ecrypted signals) are, according to him - if you follow his line of thought - difficult to ban, because they exist all the time. He says (and others before him), that there is no difference between : - 5Cl = either 1 or 4 aces - Di6 = either from 65 or from 876 - Di2 = odd number of diamonds if odd number of trumps, even otherwise Since all three actual meanings can be deduced from the holding of partner. Of course this is true but not important. There is a subtle difference between the first two cases and the third one. In the first, the user is trying to put 2 sets of widely different actual meanings within one single signal, hoping that the actual meaning can be determined by partner. In the third, the user is putting 2 sets of closely similar meanings into one signal, knowing that partner has the key to decrypt. It is not easy to describe this in a regulation, although the words of the WBF and NBB regulation do seem to work, but it is clearly something different. -- 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 Aug 8 04:02:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77I26O04253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:02:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77I1nt04233 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:01:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-56.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.56]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12506 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 20:01:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398EA364.EC50B232@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 13:54:12 +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] L25A References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > L25A permits a change if the correct conditions are met [inadvertency > and immediacy] until partner calls. What happens if the conditions are > met, and the Director allows a change, after LHO has called? > > Ton and I permit a change under L21B because LHO was misinformed as to > what you were doing. David B disagrees with this. But I do not > understand Grattan or Kojak nor why they are trying to look at L25B in a > situation where L25B does not apply. > I would like to add my vote to the application of L21B, as it is the only sensible option. I do not agree with the way DS and TK arrive at this conclusion, but that need not matter. If you do not use L21B for the situation, then what will you use ? -- 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 Aug 8 04:12:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77ICil04290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:12:44 +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 e77ICYt04286 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:12:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA02681 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA17558 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:12:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008071812.OAA17558@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 > From: Herman De Wael > There has been a call (1) > There has been a call by LHO (2) > The player now realises that call (1) was made under all the > circumstances that make a change under L25A allowable, and > the TD agrees with this and allows the change. > There is now a new call (3) > > What happens to call (2) ? > > Nowhere is this said in the laws, but we all agree that the > only sensible solution is to apply L21B1 on this. Thank you, Herman, for the very clear summary I hope we are all on the same page now. > According > to L16C1, the original call (2) is AI to the partner of the > player that made it. > I believe the original question was whether or not we apply > L16C2 to the other pair - are they offending ? > Yes I believe they are and the withdrawn call (2) is UI to > the others. This agrees with the answer I sent some weeks ago except for one small but important detail. I have no doubt about the second part -- the withdrawn call (2) is UI to the side that caused the problem (dealer's side in the original example). As long as the other side is non- offending, the call is AI to them, but if second hand rushed to make his call or otherwise acted improperly, then call (2) is UI to that side as well. Call (1) is unlikely to carry useful information, but I suppose the same rules apply to it as to (2). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 04:32:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77IWPe04313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:32:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77IWIt04308 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:32:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e77IWEA15628; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:32:14 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e77IWDi27395; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:32:13 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:32:12 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 TAA02226; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:32:11 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id TAA02132; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:32:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:32:11 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200008071832.TAA02132@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman writes: [snip} > Steve touches on a special point when discussing encrypted > signals (sorry I used cryptic once before - I was not trying > to encrypt the issue). > [snip] > > There is a subtle difference between the first two cases and > the third one. In the first, the user is trying to put 2 > sets of widely different actual meanings within one single > signal, hoping that the actual meaning can be determined by > partner. In the third, the user is putting 2 sets of > closely similar meanings into one signal, knowing that > partner has the key to decrypt. > > It is not easy to describe this in a regulation, although > the words of the WBF and NBB regulation do seem to work, but > it is clearly something different. Something like: Encrypted signal are signals where the message given involves two or more aspects of the defenders hand, in a way that (ipso facto) defender's partner will be able to infer/deduce useful information from the signal while/whilst declarer will not. 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 Tue Aug 8 04:33:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77IXm904325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:33:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77IXgt04321 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07572 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:24:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:27:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] L16C [was L25A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson wrote: >The actual question under discussion is whether, if LHO is allowed to >change his call, it is UI or AI. Hm. I almost jumped on the wrong horse, here. :-) You're talking, not about the withdrawn "pass", but the call made, and subsequently withdrawn, by the LHO of the person who put out the pass card, while intending to put out the stop card. This seems to be a Law 16C problem, not a Law 25 problem, so I've changed the subject line. The wording of law 16C seems pretty clear - at least, after you decide who is the NOS and who the OS. :-) So, who's who? Well, if we decide putting out the pass card is not an infraction in the meaning of the laws, then we open another can of worms, because LHO has made a call out of turn. Besides, it seems apparent that there _was_ an infraction - of the bidding box regulations. So unless we decide LHO has committed the infraction of an out-of-tempo (i.e., too fast) call (and I don't think we want to do that), LHO is "non-offending" for the purposes of L16C. So, by L16C1, the information from his withdrawn call is AI to his side, and by L16C2, it's UI to the other (offending) side. That doesn't seem too hard to me, so either I've missed the point entirely, or we got off on a bunch of irrelevant (to this question) tangents earlier in the thread. :-) Okay, I've stuck my neck out. Feel free to apply the axe. :-) 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/AwUBOY8Ayr2UW3au93vOEQKIsACg3frnAmB82qCvfpOZ3+oPU0ecPPkAn3U7 gvxypawxu0O/W4pra+QEyKhN =G7Ie -----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 Aug 8 05:16:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77JGE304363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 05:16:14 +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 (f74.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77JG8t04359 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 05:16:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:16:00 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.18 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 07 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 12:16:00 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2000 19:16:00.0631 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC0CE070:01C000A3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > You really should understand something before you go on record as > >disagreeing with it. > > I should? well, you often don't, so I was merely following your >example. It's really cute that when you understand something incorrectly and then disagree with it, you usually bring yourself to the point the author was trying to make. That's a benefit you do not get from having no understanding. > > Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, > >either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer > >has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh shit, I didn't mean >to > >pass," should come to mind. > > Oh, well, if that is your case, then I am really rather surprised. >The interpretation that the ACBL, the EBU, the WBU, the EBL, the Russian >BL all seem to have accepted is that the pause for thought is from the >realisation of the mistake. The realization itself may be a thought process and puts you out-of-bounds. If dealer were brought to the conclusion that he made a mistake by LHO's bid, there was thought involved. > It is not obvious to me how you can pause **"for thought"** about >something you have not realised. The same way that you come to an epiphany, you do it simultaneously. > > The problem I have with this L21B argument is that it can only apply >to > >LHO. What law gives you the authority to allow the initial opener to >change > >his inadvertant pass? It's not L21B as the initial opener has no > >misinformation. It's not 25A since it's too late. And it's not 25B >since > >LHO has already made a call. > > It is L25A and it is not too late. That's a perfectly fine opinion I do not share. Then again, I wasn't there. Maybe dealer was perfectly oblivious to LHO. > > I also suspect that some people have gotten confused about which >player > >you're allowing to change which call based on which law. There are two > >problems here, not one. > > Oh? Sorry three problems. > You put a pass card down, meaning it as a Stop card. You then make >your actual Skip Bid. Before you actually manage to get your Skip Bid >out of the box, LHO has called. You realise you have made a mistake as >you put your Skip Bid down and see your Stop card was the wrong colour. >you immediately comment - thus there was no pause for thought. > > That is the basic problem, and everyone I know is allowing the pass >card to be changed to a Stop card under L25A, allowing LHO to change his >call under L21B. What was it everyone was posting about? > I asked whether LHO's call is UI or AI. Answered and subsequently ignored for the problem of whether and how it should get this far -- to which I was responding no. I already answered what I thought about this third problem -- AI to LHO/RHO and UI to dealer/partner via L16C. I seem to remember someone else reaching the exact opposite conclusion, though I don't remember how. Wish I could. If it were a valid argument, we have proof by contradiction that the laws are axiomatically inconsistant or they've been improperly applied to have arrived at this problem. -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 Aug 8 05:50:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77JoHd04388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 05:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e77Jo9t04384 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 05:50:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 98479 invoked for bounce); 7 Aug 2000 19:50:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.43.201) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 7 Aug 2000 19:50:04 -0000 Message-ID: <028a01c000a8$e336d0a0$c92b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> <398EED52.795D54E8@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:46:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Vitold" > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > This is true of any uncommon > > method (which may be just uncommon in your own > > locality) natural or otherwise. > > I don't hear the same outcry against natural unusual treatments. > > Because in natural systems there > not too much such "unusual" treatments - and > there are enough place in CC for > discribing them. Apparently you do not play frequently against players like me who love to invent their own system. Even in situation where it seems I play "standard" a bunch of unusual treatments will crop up, because I rate to have detailed non-standard agreement for follow-up sequences. Example: 2H (weak-two) 2S*(relay, 2NT would have been Ogust) 2NT (max) 3C*(relay, 3S would have asked for singleton) 3H (2 tops) 3S* (relay) 4C (singleton) ... I doubt that anybody could guess what responder has *not* asked, and what holdings opener has denied. I.e. opponents will depend on detailed information at all stages, and the CC certainly does not offer enough space to detail my partnership's agreements. "2H -> 2S = art. forcing (-> 2NT max 3C/3D singletons"; 2NT = Ogust ->minminmaxmax" (thats about the space the CC provides) certainly is not enough. 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 Aug 8 07:24:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77LNm704459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:23:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77LNft04455 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:23:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.121] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LuMs-000Gjl-00; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:23:30 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c000b5$be073d80$795608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <398EA652.EEFF0393@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:14:43 +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 To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > So corrections under L25A are possible after LHO has called. > +=+ But only if the attempt to correct is made 'without pause for thought'.+=+ > > That's the problem we are with here. The TD has decided > that L25A applies, and there is no use disagreeing with > him. > +=+ Unless we disagree with him on the facts. +=+ > > The problem exists and won't go away simply because you say > it cannot happen. It can happen. > +=+ Yes, and the Director's ruling may perhaps be justified - the dealer may not have paused for thought (but note that the law book does not specify what thought - it is well established that if he clearly ceases to think about his action and thinks about something else he has broken the link back to the inadvertency). If the facts justify application of 25A then 16C will apply since the withdrawn calls follow a breach of the bidding box regulations, an infraction. ~ 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 Aug 8 07:49:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77LnFM04487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:49:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77Ln9t04483 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l7b.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.235]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA16371 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000807174902.013aaba8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:49:02 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 03:56 PM 8/6/2000 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 8/5/00 11:17:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >axman22@hotmail.com writes: > >> What does this have to do with banning, unfairness, etc?? >How about accepting that encryption means partnership agreement as to meaning >which is secret -- not given to the opponents? Too simple? No. Just wrong. The meaning of an "encrypted" signal, when properly explained or pre-alerted or whatever, is clear and equally available to all players. For example "partner either has an odd number of trumps and likes hearts, or an even number and dislikes hearts." The _significance_ of this information, _as with any other piece of legal information at the table_, will vary from player to player depending on the cards they are looking at. But there is no "secret meaning". Of course, the defenders will seek to use this tactic in a way which is maximally useful to them and minimally useful to the declarer. But that is just a good general principle of defensive play. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 07:50:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Lo0904500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:50:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77Lnot04496 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA19225 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA17748 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:49:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008072149.RAA17748@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > ...when explaining their meaning I always add "... unless it is singleton > or doubleton." Now the player has Full disclosure so no complaint. (and I had a private message along the same lines) My disclosure may or may not have been adequate. The incident was a long time ago, and I have forgotten the exact words. Whether my disclosure was adequate -- and standards were lower then -- is a side issue. _Assume_ the disclosure was adequate in order to see the relevance to the encrypted signals thread. The interesting points are: 1) My opponent seemed to believe I owed him an explanation based on what was in my hand (the king). 2) Encrypted signals are, at least in many respects, the same as this incident. Declarer had (if I disclosed correctly) full knowledge of the _meaning_ of our leads, but it did him no good without seeing my hand. Yes, he could have chosen to play partner for a doubleton honor, but it was far more reasonable to play him for a sequence, which would have been an entirely normal lead. The doubleton honor lead was a bit of a desperation move, which happened to work out well that time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 07:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77LtL804522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:55:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77LtCt04514 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:55:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-213.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.213]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F82D36B5A; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:54:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <014101c000b9$2e15bc20$0db5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:48:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Call (1) is the inadvertent pass being relaced by a stop card and call and then Steve concludes >Call (1) is unlikely to carry useful information, but I suppose the >same rules apply to it as to (2). It is not just unlikely but impossible that call (1) carries unauthorized information (I try to avoid 'useful information', since someone could argue that misinformation is useful information) and nothing related to law 16 applies to this call. 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 Aug 8 07:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77LtKO04521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e77LtBt04513 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:55:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-213.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.213]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AC5036B3C; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:54:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <014001c000b9$2d989ce0$0db5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:30:12 +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 > >snip >> >> Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, >>either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer >>has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh shit, I didn't mean to >>pass," should come to mind. >> > >there's no doubt in my mind that the Wendy Coup applies here. You pull >a stop card with intent to bid 3C, Wendy walks past and then you >discover that: > >1) LHO has called >2) your stop card is green > >25A applies. This is a very offensive statement, mainly because it is too short. ton > >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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 07:59:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77LxUY04543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:59:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77LxNt04539 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l7b.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.235]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27211 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 17:59:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000807175921.013ae090@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:59:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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 01:45 AM 8/7/2000 PDT, Todd wrote: > Some group of people could have met on a perfectly sunny day in >Logicsville, Now that's what I would call a very generous assumption. >have come to no decision on whether or not encrypted signals >are fair, and still have placed a ban. We don't, and may never know the >reason for the ban and it wouldn't have been a matter for the L&EC >necessarily, no? Until we know better, we could assume that the ban on >encrypted signals was made for reasons having nothing to do with whether or >not they are fair. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 08:22:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77MMNq04572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:22:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77MMGt04568 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:22:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054l7b.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.84.235]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29103 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000807182214.013b0558@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:22:14 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <200008071832.TAA02132@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 07:32 PM 8/7/2000 +0100, Robin wrote: >Something like: > Encrypted signal are signals where the message given > involves two or more aspects of the defenders hand, > in a way that (ipso facto) defender's partner will be > able to infer/deduce useful information from the signal > while/whilst declarer will not. > Quite a mouthful, I'd say. Let's see... "...will be able to infer..." and "...declarer will not." are far too definite. Certainly those who employ this method do so with the hope that things will work out this way, but it doesn't necessarily happen. It is impossible to specify to any useful degree all situations in which the encryption key is available, and so there are bound to be circumstances which are ambiguous as to which signalling method is appropriate. Then too, the key may be based on faulty information. Depending on circumstances, I will not infrequently open a weak 2 with 5,6, or 7 card suits. Anybody relying on my holding a suit 6-card as the basis for an encryption key is apt to come to some harm for their trouble. Likewise for my tendency to open nt holding 5-card majors. Also problematic is the notion of "useful". The information may or may not be of use to partner _or_ declarer. Generally, the intent is that it will be useful to partner _before_ it is useful to declarer, and that in consequence, it will be more useful to partner. But again, it doesn't necessarily play that way in practice. And are we certain that this definition does not exclude other common defensive tools? Lavinthal discards, for example, often communicate information about two or more aspects of defender's hand, and when properly used, will generally be more useful to partner than to declarer. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 08:46:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77Mjrg04595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:45:53 +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 e77Mjkt04591 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.214] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13LveP-000Ild-00; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:45:42 +0100 Message-ID: <003901c000c1$39961880$d65408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman><001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:44:52 +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: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > -------------------- \x/ ------------------- > I am surprised that you are surprised. This is a situation normal > enough to have occurred at my table perpetrated by an opponent maybe > three times in the last six months: if that is the frequency with me > playing, then presumably there are tens of thousands of occurrences > daily around the world. > > The player pulls out what he believes to be a Stop card and puts it on > the table. He then pulls out his actual call, and as he puts that on > the table he notices the Stop card is the wrong colour. He then > attempts to change that immediately. > > It is a common occurrence and I cannot see any reason why the > requirements of L25A are not met. > +=+ This is a very helpful description since it is outstandingly clear from it that the player has thought about two distinct matters, each involving a separate card from the bidding box. If you rule that the first (Pass) card is to be taken as a call, then in turning to the second card he has removed his attention from the call he has made and has given his attention to a further action. With the unmistakable refocusing of the player's thoughts 25A cannot now apply - if Law 25 is to be involved it is a Law 25B matter. If on the other hand you rule that the first (Pass) card does not constitute a call, Law 25 does not figure at all. ~ 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 Aug 8 08:54:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e77MsOc04615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:54:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e77MsJt04611 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:54:19 +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 <20000807225415.GTGZ24297.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:54:15 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:54:22 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I am surprised that you are surprised. This is a situation normal > enough to have occurred at my table perpetrated by an opponent maybe > three times in the last six months: if that is the frequency with me > playing, then presumably there are tens of thousands of occurrences > daily around the world. > > The player pulls out what he believes to be a Stop card and puts it on > the table. He then pulls out his actual call, and as he puts that on > the table he notices the Stop card is the wrong colour. He then > attempts to change that immediately. > > It is a common occurrence and I cannot see any reason why the > requirements of L25A are not met. > Exactly. Especially if LHO is ready to open 2NT - a large percentage of the time he expects to see a pass on his right, and when it comes he is ready to put his 2NT out. Perhaps the preempter - being sure that the STOP card was out, was being careful to make sure he got the proper bid cards out of the box - after all, he was going half-way into it. I can see this problem happening very easily. As far as the "until partner has called" can be argued to be necessary because sometimes you are sure you put a bid down and don't check it until you see something illogical on your left.... I once opened 3NT (strong) but had apparantly only got the 2NT card on the table. When LHO bid 3H, I checked my bid and found my mistake... Fortunately, the cards spoke for themselves... my 26 HCP was well outside my 20-21 2NT range. I believe the TD told me that the 3H was UI to us and AI to them. Seemed logical to me.. Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 10:15:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e780Ebh04688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:14:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e780EWt04683 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:14:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.203]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000808001810.IBDT2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:18:10 +1200 Message-ID: <040c01c000cd$36f69800$866860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru><018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:39:29 +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: "David Stevenson" Wayne > > > >This is true of any uncommon method (which may be just uncommon in your own > >locality) natural or otherwise. > > > >I don't hear the same outcry against natural unusual treatments. > > That is because of your geographical location. It appears that your > Zone generally have come up with a relaxed approach to methods that may > be played. People that do not like it are presumably no longer playing > bridge. The rules are perhaps not as relaxed as you imagine. HUMs can only be played in events where 8 boards or more are played against the same opponents. There are plenty of games in which players can play without coming up against HUMs etc. On the other hand Encryted Signals are not as far as I am aware restricted but I know of no pairs playing such methods. > > In many parts of the world - it is suggested that North America is the > most extreme - there is a fair sized number of people who believe that > any convention or natural treatment should be allowed if they or their > friends play it, but no other methods should be permitted. That > includes an objection from a local trouble-maker who objected in a soi- > disant friendly event to her opponents playing a 2D opening as a weak > opening with diamonds. > Ok but let me make more point clearer. WBF are jumping on unusual artificial methods and some here and elsewhere are defending that position. But in my opinion if it is a valid argument to do this because it is difficult to prepare against such methods then it is an equally valid argument to restrict unusual natural methods for the same reasons. Wayne Burrows "I am planning to live forever - so far so good" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 10:15:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e780EXr04684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:14:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e780ESt04678 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:14:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.203]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000808001805.IBDE2560607.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:18:05 +1200 Message-ID: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Fielded Psych Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:25:39 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03EF_01C00112.3BF7AB60" 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_03EF_01C00112.3BF7AB60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the diverse = opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". Warning I was at the table. However the director was not called and = therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as shown: 10xxx K AQJxx Axx 1d* X 1s** 2c 2s 3c P P 3d*** 4c All Pass * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short = diamonds. ** 3-card suit Axx *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? If so how strong is this evidence of a Partnership Understanding? If not what additional evidence would be required to determine that = there was a PU? Wayne Burrows ------=_NextPart_000_03EF_01C00112.3BF7AB60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is a practical example = that I am using=20 to try an guage the diverse opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic=20 bidding".
 
Warning I was at the = table.  However=20 the director was not called and therefore there was ruling or recording = made of=20 this psych.
 
The dealer held the following = hand and the=20 bidding proceded as shown:
 
10xxx
K
AQJxx
Axx
 
1d*   X  1s**=20 2c
2s    3c = P   =20 P
3d*** 4c All Pass
 
* 1d was some version of = Precision that may=20 have included short diamonds.
 
** 3-card suit Axx
 
*** Is 3d an attempt to field a = possible=20 psych?
 
If so how strong is this = evidence of a=20 Partnership Understanding?
 
If not what additional = evidence would=20 be required to determine that there was a PU?
 
 
Wayne Burrows
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_03EF_01C00112.3BF7AB60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 11:34:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e781XOI04755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:33:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e781XHt04751 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:33:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial5.isi.com [192.103.52.196]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id SAA00369; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Wayne Burrows" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Fielded Psych Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:34:33 -0400 Message-ID: <000401c000d8$ce42e3c0$f3d3fea9@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't see any evidence of a concealed partnership understanding. 3D was a simple balancing bid. The initial 1D opening did nothing to clarify shape. 3D shows a hand with real diamonds and sufficient distribution/values to compete to the three level. It is a descriptive bid and allows the partnership to explore for a double fit. If anything, I think the 3D bid suggests that the psyche was not fielded. If you expect that partner could be making a 1S psyche, the bid becomes MUCH less attractive. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 4:26 PM To: Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Fielded Psych Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the diverse opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". Warning I was at the table. However the director was not called and therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as shown: 10xxx K AQJxx Axx 1d* X 1s** 2c 2s 3c P P 3d*** 4c All Pass * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short diamonds. ** 3-card suit Axx *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? If so how strong is this evidence of a Partnership Understanding? If not what additional evidence would be required to determine that there was a PU? Wayne Burrows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOY9jpyGkJ7YU62vZEQI+xgCdGYu4msN8EnsK5r2id/tuBQ4+iokAn2+9 sTkvv8JkFA3BFSppetkkJ2vY =he0p -----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 Aug 8 12:31:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e782Unx04825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:30:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e782Ugt04821 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:30:43 +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 13LzA3-000K58-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:30:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:17:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <014001c000b9$2d989ce0$0db5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <014001c000b9$2d989ce0$0db5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <014001c000b9$2d989ce0$0db5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes snip >> >>there's no doubt in my mind that the Wendy Coup applies here. You pull >>a stop card with intent to bid 3C, Wendy walks past and then you >>discover that: >> >>1) LHO has called >>2) your stop card is green >> >>25A applies. > >This is a very offensive statement, mainly because it is too short. > >ton > Wendy is a very beautiful barmaid, who wears (during what passes for our English summer) not much. If you have a choice of looking at Stevenson or Wendy during the auction it's a no-brainer. There are those of us who drink half pints of beer in order to get her to the table twice as often in order to pick up the glasses. The side tables are very low and so she needs to stoop to pick up the glasses. Since I drink about a glass of beer every round, three things happen each round 1) Wendy arrives, picks up glasses from last round and leaves. That's board 1 out of the window. 2) I drink beer, need a pee-break and place the contract in partner's hand. That's board 2 out of the window. After my rest-room visit I go to the bar to fetch another beer and chat to Wendy. 3) I'm late back for the third board and rush the auction, probably putting a green stop card on the table while Wendy is fetching partner's glass. *Are you seriously telling me I can't change my inadvertant call?* btw 2NT is AI to RHO and LHO, UI to pard and me. But I said all this in my first response to the thread, and nothing anybody has said has made me want to change my mind. The only helpful comment was Robin's pointing out why do we have a 25A if we're not allowed to use it. Is that long enough? 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 Aug 8 12:31:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e782UgH04820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:30:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e782UZt04815 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Lz9z-000K4y-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:30:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:21:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] -40% + livraison pour 1 Frs References: <3.0.32.20000807105511.0120d040@acsys.anu.edu.au> <398EE082.7D5306B0@inter.net.il> In-Reply-To: <398EE082.7D5306B0@inter.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <398EE082.7D5306B0@inter.net.il>, Dany Haimovici writes >NO NO NO Pas un filtres francais ...... > They taste disgusting, are yellow and are called Gitanes. 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 Aug 8 12:47:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e782kw004874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e782kgt04858 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:43 +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 13LzPW-000KNP-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:46:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:17:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <004301c00084$81edc3e0$0db5f1c3@kooijman> <005b01c00090$bc543620$a27393c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <005b01c00090$bc543620$a27393c3@pacific> 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: >+=+ Indeed, that is so. The Director would examine >the facts closely and make a ruling on the point. He >would need a very clear ascertainment of the exact >course of events, because many would suspect that >when Dealer has had time to quit the pass card and >LHO has had time to put a bidding card down also, >the probability of 'immediacy' is extremely low. But >we should never say 'impossible' - even if we must >next ask ourselves when exactly it was that the >mistake was noticed and spoken about. I think I have >said before that the progress from the point where >the Pass must be deemed a call made, to the point >when 'without pause for thought' ceases to apply, >would normally be almost instantaneous - so the >Director should expect to be questioned about >the ascertainment of facts. I do not see why it should be instantaneous. With bidding boxes a player may pull out the wrong card. If he fails to look at it, he may not realise he has done so. This is a frequent occurrence, happening once every two sessions or so. There is no pause for thought if he attempts to change it once he realises what he has done. Yes, it is going to be nearly instantaneous from *that* moment, but not from the moment you mention, when the call clears the box. -- 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 Aug 8 12:47:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e782l1Q04876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:47:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e782kgt04859 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:43 +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 13LzPW-000KNO-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:46:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:11:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <1e.90ce2c0.26c00814@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <1e.90ce2c0.26c00814@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >Let me try once more, I'm not too tired. The conditions that you set, a >pass, a call by LHO, a request for correction under 25A, and a correction >under 25A -- are not possible, according to my reading of the Law. Since 25B >specifically treats with a "delayed" change, and also gives specific >procedure when this occurs, I don't see why you and Ton are applying 21B. Forget 21B for a moment, which is nothing to do with whether you are allowed to change it. Consider the actual change. We have drummed into our Directors, into our players, into appeals personnel via the ACBL case-books, and in lots of ways one basic premise: the attempt to change must be without pause for thought: since the pause cannot be for thought before the player is aware of the problem, this forbidden pause starts from the realisation that the player has misspulled/misspoken/mis-written/mis-clicked. Are you saying you do not accept this? If you do accept it, then the situation in the original question is possible. It is not only possible, but fairly common, and I am surprised that you are not allowing a L25A change. -- 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 Aug 8 12:47:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e782kvC04873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e782kgt04857 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:43 +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 13LzPW-000KNN-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:46:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:02:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] L25A References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@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 Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >David Stevenson wrote: > >>The actual question under discussion is whether, if LHO is allowed to >>change his call, it is UI or AI. > >Hm. I almost jumped on the wrong horse, here. :-) > >You're talking, not about the withdrawn "pass", but the call made, >and subsequently withdrawn, by the LHO of the person who put out the >pass card, while intending to put out the stop card. This seems to be >a Law 16C problem, not a Law 25 problem, so I've changed the subject >line. The only thing I really disagree with in your post is changing the subject line. I am trying to find out how we should apply L25A in its entirety. This is a thread about L25A. No problem with the rest of the post, since this is the first post that has answered the question set, despite being the 35th article in the thread. >The wording of law 16C seems pretty clear - at least, after you >decide who is the NOS and who the OS. :-) So, who's who? Well, if we >decide putting out the pass card is not an infraction in the meaning >of the laws, then we open another can of worms, because LHO has made >a call out of turn. Besides, it seems apparent that there _was_ an >infraction - of the bidding box regulations. So unless we decide LHO >has committed the infraction of an out-of-tempo (i.e., too fast) call >(and I don't think we want to do that), LHO is "non-offending" for >the purposes of L16C. So, by L16C1, the information from his >withdrawn call is AI to his side, and by L16C2, it's UI to the other >(offending) side. > >That doesn't seem too hard to me, so either I've missed the point >entirely, or we got off on a bunch of irrelevant (to this question) >tangents earlier in the thread. :-) > >Okay, I've stuck my neck out. Feel free to apply the axe. :-) -- 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 Aug 8 12:47:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e782kwO04875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e782kht04860 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:46:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13LzPW-000KNQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 02:29:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:26 PM 8/5/00, David wrote: > >> E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S >> B 14 6 Pairs >> 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 >> J943 P 2H#2 P 2N >> QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N >> 852 QT973 AP >> K2 A9763 >> 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG >> A73 #2 Negative >> AKJ4 #3 Transfer >> QJT >> AKQ >> >> South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. >>He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely >>were playing transfers. >> >> North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and >>believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he >>wants to play there. >> >> It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only >>one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. > >Why should this matter? The UI available to North was that South thought >North held hearts rather than spades. That UI suggests that North might do >better to bid 4S rather than pass 3NT, which he didn't do. Had he, we'd >have rolled the contract back to 3NT, as that would be the non-suggested >LA. Since North didn't make use of the UI he had (by bidding over 3NT), >there was no UI-related infraction. The reason it matters is that normally when pd makes an obvious transfer break but has not alerted the transfer, converting to the major is an LA and the ruling to that major is near-automatic. >> West led the H5 against 3NT and South made ten tricks: she said she >>would have found a different lead if she had know 3H was a transfer. > >OK, now we need to rule on the MI; a whole different issue. I'll leave it >to the AC to decide whether West might have led the S2, and whether this >would have induced declarer to decline the heart finesse, resulting in only >9 tricks. Oh, Eric! You are running a one-day Current Match Assignment Swiss Pairs, 7x7 board matches, making boards up at the start of the round, 56 tables which is a lot for one scorer, and your scorer has never done the job before, and your caddies have never dealt with exactly this type of tourney before. Ok, the scorer is trying valiantly [I have to say that, he reads BLML]. You are basically running on a schedule which for a lot of reasons is going to finish at least an hour late, and possibly two, and you need an appeal like a hole in the head. Could we not just let the Director rule correctly and forget about ACs? -- 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 Aug 8 13:02:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7832CC04920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:02:12 +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 e78325t04916 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:02:06 +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 TAA28632; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 19:58:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200008080258.TAA28632@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Aug 2000 08:25:39 PDT." <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 19:58:39 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the diverse = > opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". > > Warning I was at the table. However the director was not called and = > therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. > > The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as shown: > > 10xxx > K > AQJxx > Axx > > 1d* X 1s** 2c > 2s 3c P P > 3d*** 4c All Pass > > * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short = > diamonds. > > ** 3-card suit Axx > > *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? Absolutely not! 3D is a fine descriptive bid, and I'd say the same thing if 1D were a Standard American opener that tended to show 4 diamonds. In fact, if I held this hand, my only choices would be 3D or pass, and I'd strongly lean toward 3D especially at matchpoints. If you're going to bid again, why not bid 3D on the way to 3S? It could help find a deficient-HCP game based on a double fit, it may help partner decide how high to compete, and it may help partner on defense if they buy the contract. -- 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 Tue Aug 8 13:09:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7839EM04955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:09:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78391t04943 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:09:02 +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 13Lzl8-0006Nw-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:08:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:52:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <003901c000c1$39961880$d65408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003901c000c1$39961880$d65408c3@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================================= >"So long as a man rides his hobby-horse >peaceably and quietly along the king's highway, >and neither compels you or me to get up behind >him - pray, Sir, what have either you or I to >do with it? " - Tristram Shandy. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:30 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > >> >-------------------- \x/ ------------------- >> I am surprised that you are surprised. This is a situation normal >> enough to have occurred at my table perpetrated by an opponent maybe >> three times in the last six months: if that is the frequency with me >> playing, then presumably there are tens of thousands of occurrences >> daily around the world. >> >> The player pulls out what he believes to be a Stop card and puts it on >> the table. He then pulls out his actual call, and as he puts that on >> the table he notices the Stop card is the wrong colour. He then >> attempts to change that immediately. >> >> It is a common occurrence and I cannot see any reason why the >> requirements of L25A are not met. >> >+=+ This is a very helpful description since it >is outstandingly clear from it that the player >has thought about two distinct matters, >each involving a separate card from the >bidding box. If you rule that the first (Pass) >card is to be taken as a call, then in >turning to the second card he has removed >his attention from the call he has made >and has given his attention to a further >action. With the unmistakable refocusing >of the player's thoughts 25A cannot now >apply - if Law 25 is to be involved it is a >Law 25B matter. > If on the other hand you rule that >the first (Pass) card does not constitute >a call, Law 25 does not figure at all. Hmm. An unnecessary journey into semantics, I think. The player intends a call. To make that call involves taking two separate cards out of the box. He takes a card out of the box. That is part of his call as far as he is aware. Assuming he has made an inadvertent error in his choice of card then he has made an inadvertent call. Partial only? Yes, but so what? -- 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 Aug 8 13:09:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7839Gm04956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:09:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78391t04945 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:09:02 +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 13Lzl8-0006Ny-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:08:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:06:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych References: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> In-Reply-To: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> 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 rgb.anu.edu.au id e78398t04952 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the > diverse opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". >   > Warning I was at the table.  However the director was not called > and therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. >   > The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as > shown: >   > 10xxx > K > AQJxx > Axx >   > 1d*   X  1s** 2c > 2s    3c P    P > 3d*** 4c All Pass >   > * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short > diamonds. >   > ** 3-card suit Axx >   > *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? No, it is the correct bid on the hand. Nothing else appeals. > If so how strong is this evidence of a Partnership Understanding? Not at all - well, nearly. 3S is a bad bid, a lazy bid, but I suppose someone who is aware of pd's propensity to not have his 1S bid is less likely to make the lazy bid. > If not what additional evidence would be required to determine that > there was a PU? Nearly as much as the evidence required to determine a PU, ie the determination is moved very little by the eminently correct 3D bid. -- 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 Aug 8 13:09:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7839NS04957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:09:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78391t04944 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:09:02 +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 13Lzl8-0006Nx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:08:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:00:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> <040c01c000cd$36f69800$866860cb@laptop> In-Reply-To: <040c01c000cd$36f69800$866860cb@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >Ok but let me make more point clearer. > >WBF are jumping on unusual artificial methods and some here and elsewhere >are defending that position. But in my opinion if it is a valid argument to >do this because it is difficult to prepare against such methods then it is >an equally valid argument to restrict unusual natural methods for the same >reasons. OK, fair enough, but so what? The people who decide what systems players are allowed to play in their events, whether the Auckland BC, the ACBL or the WBF are not the WBFLC. Such people may regulate conventions however they like, but may not regulate natural bids. So, who are you complaining about? It sounded as though you were complaining that the WBF is restricting conventions and not natural bids. So they are, because that is their remit. You want to change the Laws? Ah, that is a different matter, but that is for a different body, the 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 13:11:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e783B4i04990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:11:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e783Ast04978 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:10:55 +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 13Lzn0-000E2b-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:10:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:09:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych References: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> In-Reply-To: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> 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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop>, Wayne Burrows writes > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the > diverse opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". >   > Warning I was at the table.  However the director was not called > and therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. >   > The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as > shown: >   > 10xxx > K > AQJxx > Axx >   > 1d*   X  1s** 2c > 2s    3c P    P > 3d*** 4c All Pass >   > * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short > diamonds. >   > ** 3-card suit Axx >   > *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? No. It's just bidding out ones hand and telling pard to lead a D not a S. Would you be pushing on if you thought pard had psyched his 1S response? 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 Aug 8 13:11:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e783B5Y04991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:11:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e783Ast04979 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:10:55 +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 13Lzn0-000E2a-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:10:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:05:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <003901c000c1$39961880$d65408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003901c000c1$39961880$d65408c3@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 <003901c000c1$39961880$d65408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"So long as a man rides his hobby-horse >peaceably and quietly along the king's highway, >and neither compels you or me to get up behind >him - pray, Sir, what have either you or I to >do with it? " - Tristram Shandy. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:30 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > >> >-------------------- \x/ ------------------- >> I am surprised that you are surprised. This is a situation normal >> enough to have occurred at my table perpetrated by an opponent maybe >> three times in the last six months: if that is the frequency with me >> playing, then presumably there are tens of thousands of occurrences >> daily around the world. >> >> The player pulls out what he believes to be a Stop card and puts it on >> the table. He then pulls out his actual call, and as he puts that on >> the table he notices the Stop card is the wrong colour. He then >> attempts to change that immediately. >> >> It is a common occurrence and I cannot see any reason why the >> requirements of L25A are not met. >> >+=+ This is a very helpful description since it >is outstandingly clear from it that the player >has thought about two distinct matters, >each involving a separate card from the >bidding box. I entirely disagree with this statement. He thought about one matter, that of bidding 3C. It requires two arm movements. When the green stop card hits the deck it appears to be a call which happens to be inadvertent. The call *was* made. It exists, therefore it is. It was inadvertent. He does not need to address anything at all, except that once he becomes aware of it and if he is in time then he may change it under Law 25A. There is no point in having a Law 25A if you're going to interpret it any other way than this. Mind you I agree with DALB that "a call once made cannot be changed" would be a much better Law. > If you rule that the first (Pass) >card is to be taken as a call, then in >turning to the second card he has removed >his attention from the call he has made >and has given his attention to a further >action. With the unmistakable refocusing >of the player's thoughts 25A cannot now >apply This is just not so. Have you seen Wendy the barmaid at the YC? He never had any attention on the call just made, he was looking at Wendy and missed the STOP card by about half an inch. Why else would the idiot put a pass card on the deck when he was trying to bid 3C? Come on Grattan, play bridge in a real world. > - if Law 25 is to be involved it is a >Law 25B matter. > If on the other hand you rule that >the first (Pass) card does not constitute >a call, Law 25 does not figure at all. Agreed. cheers john > ~ 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/ -- 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 Aug 8 13:15:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e783Ems05009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:14:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e783Ebt05005 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054m9h.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.89.49]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28404 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 23:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000807231430.013ab378@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 23:14:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych In-Reply-To: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:25 AM 8/8/2000 +1200, Wayne wrote: > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the diverse >opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". However the >director was not called and therefore there was ruling or recording made of > this psych. The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded >as shown: 10xxx K AQJxx Axx 1s** 2c P 3d*** 4c All Pass >* 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short diamonds. > ** 3-card suit Axx *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? How the heck would I know? It looks like a reasonable attempt to describe the hand to me, together with a suggestion of a good lead if the opponents buy the contract. Given that the bidder has systemically never clarified the nature of his diamond holding, it seems like not such a bad idea. But of course when it turns out that partner has psyched his 1S response, it looks more like a fielded psych. Or such is the implication of your question, anyway. But as evidence of any sort of CPU, I would call it pretty thin beer. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 13:18:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e783IOm05023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:18:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e783IEt05019 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:18:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Lzu6-000ENx-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:18:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 04:16:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@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 <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Eric Landau wrote: DWS > Oh, Eric! You are running a one-day Current Match Assignment Swiss >Pairs, 7x7 board matches, making boards up at the start of the round, 56 >tables which is a lot for one scorer, and your scorer has never done the >job before, and your caddies have never dealt with exactly this type of >tourney before. Ok, the scorer is trying valiantly [I have to say that, >he reads BLML]. You are basically running on a schedule which for a lot >of reasons is going to finish at least an hour late, and possibly two, >and you need an appeal like a hole in the head. Could we not just let >the Director rule correctly and forget about ACs? > > DWS fails to point out that appeals are resolved before the assignments for the next round in the UK. Are you willing to wait for the extra 15 minutes? cheers -- 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 Aug 8 13:51:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e783p4f05074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:51:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e783p0t05070 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:51:00 +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 e783ojK03421 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:50:45 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:50:45 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] re: HUMS In-Reply-To: <398EEBE1.BDFE0977@elnet.msk.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Vitold wrote: > Hi all:) > > Patrick wrote: > > > It is true that when the captain becomes declarer the defence has > > less clues, because it is dummy that has described their distribution, > > but understanding inferences about their system doesn't require a > > doctorate or a high level of study. An example: > > South opens a strong club and partner responds showing 9+ points > > with at least an Ace or 2 Kings. South relays a couple of times > > to find out that North has 5 Spades 3 Hearts 4 Diamonds and 1 Club. > > South then signs off in 3NT without asking further questions. > > Let's see what you can figure out about South's hand? (and don't > > ring your partner for a 3 hour brainstorming session) > > > > 1) South almost certainly doesn't have 5 hearts, because he would > > have chosen to play 4H and ruff his clubs in dummy. > > 2) South is unlikely to have 3 spades, although this is possible > > he might spurn a 5-3 fit if he had strong clubs > > 3) South has at least one club stop, He might have only 3 clubs or he > > might have 7 clubs, you can't tell, but he has at least one stop > > and it would be a mild surprise if he didn't have 2. > > 4) South probably doesn't have a lot extra for his 16+ club. Perhaps > > he could be in the 16-19 range or something like that, but with > > anything more he might have investigate slam possibilities further. All of this analysis by Patrick is correct. > > In this case the defence is significantly better off than they might > > otherwise have been. Although the opening lead is made with the same > > information about the distribution of only one hand once you have > > made that lead you can see dummy and you now know the distribution > > of both hands. You don't need to worry about encrypted distributional > > signals!! You already know the full distribution around the table and > > you can use all signals for attitude and suit preference leaving > > declarer to work out the distribution for himself. > > Really - I do not want to discuss HUM's and their features - it is BLML, not > training (or teacher's) camp. Moreover - I am not expert at all, but > Patrick's analise is not right (or is not right in full). As defender I > would need much more information: > 1. Why did he use relays? What did it mean if he had bid not-relay-bid (at > once, after first relay, after secon relay)? Would they natural - or > artificial? What you want to know is the entire bidding structure after the 1C opening. While in principle this is valid, it is impossible to achieve in practice, even for a "natural" standard system. Take the "standard" auction 1C-1H-1S-2D-3C-3NT. First consider opener's hand. Depending on the style, opener's shape could readily be balanced or unbalanced. They might be 4333, 4234, 4324, 4225, 4135, 4315, 3145, 3154, 4xx6, 5xx5, 5xx6, 5026 with any of these potentially precluded by agreement or style. When would opener rebid 1NT? When would opener rebid 2H over 2D? 2S over 2D? 2D over 1H? 2NT over 2D? 3NT over 2D? Was 2D forcing to game, or just for one round? Was it natural? Is this a pickup partnership such that there was no firm agreement about 2D? When would an artificial 2D be used, rather than leaping directly to 3NT? Does opener promise/deny/neither a diamond stopper? Thus does responder promise a diamond stopper? Would responder bypass a long diamond suit to bid 1H? On what hands? On what subsets of the hands would he then not rebid 3D after 2D? What did responder's rebids of 2S, 2C, 3C and 2NT mean? Meanwhile the 8 boards teams match is half over and your table hasn't played a card yet! > 2. How is rebids on their relays - natural or artificial? (I meant - > responder bids his suits natural or, for example, by steps). How do they > fight for to bid contract from the best hand? They can't - responder must bid something, and the meanings of the bids must be known in advance. The best one can do is to choose a code that maximises the chances of the described hand being dummy. > 3. At this example - who would be Declarer in Spade contrat? In Heart? In > Diamond? In NT? At the able you know this automatically... > Only after receiving these (and several similar) questions I will make > conclusions about relayer's distribution. Am I right, Patrick? Or is your > analise rather too light? And it may happen that ALL Patrick's conclusions > are WRONG:) No Vitold, they're dead correct. > Really "good" HUMs care for declarer's hand - so responder bids > artificially, captain usually becomes a Declarer. So - last indention in > Patrick's post will almost never take part for HUM-users. And not too rare - > for natural (and seminatural) relay-oriented system. But that's why they are > not called HUM:) Responder may bid artificially, but he can't bid non-suits, so there is always a finite chance that he will declare, unless every response is in suits that opener has already shown (1C-2C-2D-3D-3H-4C etc.). By the way, "usually becomes declarer" is not consistent with "almost never take [place]". The frequency of wrong-siding is system-dependent, and always significantly different from zero (from experience). > Sorry for this deviation from main stream - we are discussing the Laws and > regulations. I tried to show that even so simple example (as Patrick > introdused) may provide to almost obvious conclusion: opponents need be > informed about HUM beforehand, for preparing. No-one disputes that advance disclosure of HUM is desirable and neccesary. Advance disclosure of an entire constructive bidding system, should that be possible, is extreme. Very few standard players would be able to construct such a reference, and fewer opponents still would care to look at it. In my experience, pairs playing relay methods (or a HUM) are able and willing to give a much more precise account of the meaning of their auction than pairs who hide behind "it's all natural". ("Natural" yes, but there's a large range of styles within "natural"...) 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 Tue Aug 8 14:05:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7845hE05095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:05:43 +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 e7845at05091 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:05:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29868; Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:02:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200008080402.VAA29868@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Aug 2000 03:17:51 PDT." Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:02:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > *Are you seriously telling me I can't change my inadvertant call?* I think we need to refer to Law 74B here (revised version): 74B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 1. paying too much attention to Wendy and insufficient attention to the game. 2. making gratuitous comments during the auction and play. 3. chatting with Wendy when you should be starting the next board. 4. detaching a card before it is his turn to play. 5. drinking so much beer that you have to mangle the auction so you can take a pee-break. 6. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. 7. summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants. 8. pulling the wrong card out of the bidding box because you're paying too much attention to Wendy's ... well, uh, ... -- 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 Tue Aug 8 15:30:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e785TbJ05153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e785TRt05149 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:29:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack (p33-max20.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.157.33]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA19127 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:29:18 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000808172538.007ba990@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:25:38 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: [BLML] re: HUMS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote As defender I would need much more information: 1. Why did he use relays? What did it mean if he had bid not-relay-bid (at once, after first relay, after secon relay)? Would they natural - or artificial? 2. How is rebids on their relays - natural or artificial? (I meant - responder bids his suits natural or, for example, by steps). How do they fight for to bid contract from the best hand? 3. At this example - who would be Declarer in Spade contrat? In Heart? In Diamond? In NT? Only after receiving these (and several similar) questions I will make conclusions about relayer's distribution. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This particular thread came about because I took exception to the suggestion that HUMs were unfair because it took weeks to prepare against them. Vitold's argument seems to indicate that he needs to know everything about a system in order to understand all the options the opponents had in the bidding in order to defend against it. This is the justification for the estimated time to prepare a defence being 'weeks' If that is true then it means that any new system would be unfair because the opponents would need 'weeks' to study it in order to understand all the bidding options and prepare properly to defend against it. For example, if I were to create a new system based on canape style openings for both majors and minors which also included a style of canape bidding from the responder as well. Perhaps some form of forcing 1NT which promised support and a raise of opener's suit which denied support. In my example there is nothing that would be classed as HUM, but clearly the opponents are going to need as much time to learn it as at least some HUMs. I am willing to modify my earlier assertion to: "You don't need 'weeks' to prepare against a HUM unless you want to understand the HUM to such a degree that you wold be able to sit down and play the system yourself, in which case you will need 'weeks' of preparation time to counter most new systems, whether or not they have any HUM components. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 16:46:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e786jJE05205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:45:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e786jBt05201 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:45:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.13.21] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13M38L-0006eF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 07:45:05 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c00104$280b4ca0$150d073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 07:44:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >You're talking, not about the withdrawn "pass", but the call made, > >and subsequently withdrawn, by the LHO of the person who put out the > >pass card, while intending to put out the stop card. This seems to be > >a Law 16C problem, not a Law 25 problem, so I've changed the subject > >line. > > The only thing I really disagree with in your post is changing the > subject line. I am trying to find out how we should apply L25A in its > entirety. This is a thread about L25A. > > No problem with the rest of the post, since this is the first post > that has answered the question set, despite being the 35th article in > the thread. I thought this was a discussion group. Had I known that it was actually an examination room, with questions being set by David Stevenson to a group of ardent seekers after knowledge, I would of course have adopted a more suitably humble attitude. Moreover, had I realised that threads were supposed to confine themselves to what David Stevenson says they are about, I would never have ventured to introduce into a "thread about L25A" anything unrelated to that wholly admirable piece of legislation. The "question set" was: assuming the opening bidder changes his call under L25A when his LHO has already called, and assuming L21B is used to permit LHO to change his call thereafter, is LHO's withdrawn call (a) AI to his side and (b) AI to his opponents' side? The consensus appears to be that *if* those conditions are met, LHO's withdrawn call is AI to his side (who are non-offenders) but UI to his opponents (who are offenders). The rather tenuous basis for this consensus is that the opening bidder has committed an "infraction", even though no one has actually been able to say which Law he has broken or what his infraction is. People have suggested that the action that caused him to change his call in the first place, which was to pull a Pass card instead of the Stop card out of the bidding box prior to opening three clubs, is the "infraction" in question. However, this action does not contravene any of the Laws of bridge except perhaps 74B1 - but this Law has been adduced by no one as an argument for treating the opening bidder as an "offender". The "question set" contained two assumptions which I and others have had the temerity to challenge: that a change of call under L25A should be permitted at all in the described circumstances; and that the action of displaying a Pass card inadvertently conveys "misinformation" to an opponent, thus permitting him to change his call under L21B once the opening bidder has made his intended call. The correct answers - that is to say, the answers considered "blindingly obvious" by David Stevenson - are that: of course L25A applies, otherwise why do we have a L25A; and of course L21B applies because... well, because it just does, and anyway there aren't any other Laws we can use. These answers in turn contain certain assumptions which... but I had better not continue, since I have already lost enough marks on this question. 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 Tue Aug 8 17:03:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78736K05239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:03:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7872xt05235 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.13.21] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13M3Pa-00049j-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 08:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: <004501c00106$a5426f80$150d073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:02:39 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the > diverse opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". > > Warning I was at the table. However the director was not called > and therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. > > The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as > shown: > > 10xxx > K > AQJxx > Axx > > 1d* X 1s** 2c > 2s 3c P P > 3d*** 4c All Pass > > * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short > diamonds. > > ** 3-card suit Axx > > *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? Subsidiary question: did 2S show four cards, or could it be three? Not that it matters much, but the "knee-jerk" three diamond bidders have fractionally more of a case if they have already shown four spades. > No, it is the correct bid on the hand. Nothing else appeals. It isn't the correct bid on the hand. If partner can be relied upon not to psyche, then he is marked with five spades (not because his 1S bid systemically showed them, but because if he has only four spades then the opponents have at least nine hearts, and we can be fairly sure from the rest of the auction that the opponents don't have nine hearts). Thus, there is no point in trying to play in diamonds, nor in telling the opponents about our shape in order to make the play in four clubs easier for them. Partner will not be on lead against anything (unless our foolish call of three diamonds enables LHO to back into his side's heart fit after all, which three spades would not do), so *if* the auction is honest and we are not allowing for the possibility that it may be dishonest, we should not bid three diamonds. > If so how strong is this evidence of a Partnership Understanding? > Not at all - well, nearly. 3S is a bad bid, a lazy bid, but I suppose someone who is aware of pd's propensity to not have his 1S bid is less likely to make the lazy bid. Three diamonds is a bad bid, a stupid bid - but I suppose someone who is aware of partner's propensity not to have spades is less likely to make bids that might lead to a final contract in spades. However, I would not say that it constituted evidence of a partnership understanding - after all, everybody on BLML thinks that it's the right bid, so there's no particular reason why the man who held the hand at the table should not have been similarly misguided. 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 Tue Aug 8 18:39:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e788cn205295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:38:49 +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 e788cgt05291 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.60] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13M4u9-000PiH-00; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:38:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c00114$0bec8ec0$3c5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <004301c00084$81edc3e0$0db5f1c3@kooijman><005b01c00090$bc543620$a27393c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:37:50 +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: Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > With bidding boxes a player may pull out the wrong card. If he fails > to look at it, he may not realise he has done so. This is a frequent > occurrence, happening once every two sessions or so. > > There is no pause for thought if he attempts to change it once he > realises what he has done. Yes, it is going to be nearly instantaneous > from *that* moment, but not from the moment you mention, when the call > clears the box. > +=+ The discussion is now about which of us is thinking clearly. It appears to me that you wish to rule that the action of the player in pulling out the wrong card and placing it on the table constituted the making of a call. As I understand it he did that before he turned back to the bidding box and reached for another card. You wish to say that after he has completed his call, when he goes to the box to take another card he has not interrupted his thinking about the placing of the first card. Then he turns his attention once more to the table and says "that green card is not a call, I did not intend it as such". At this point it seems to me that you can rule one of two things, depending on the way you apply the regulation about how a call is made: 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without apparent intent; no call was made", or 2." Unfortunately what you have done is to make a call and when you went to the box to fish out that Two Spades card you were not thinking about the call of 'Pass' that you had made but about a further action contemplated". What I resist is the suggestion that you can decide the Pass was a call and that you can then have the player going about making a second call at that turn and find, as a matter of fact, that he has not 'paused for thought' - has thought uninterruptedly about the Pass without turning his thoughts to other things than a call he finished making, by your ruling, when having selected the Pass card he placed it on the table. Where I believe the problem lies is in a suggestion that the player can interrupt his thinking about the first action whilst he goes about choosing the second card he will take from the box, then go back to his first action, resume thinking about it, and be deemed not to have paused for thought. What did he do in the interval if not think, and was it not a 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 Tue Aug 8 20:10:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78A9aB05361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78A9Pt05357 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:09:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA14341 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:09:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:09 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions 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: <003701c00087$a1e68d00$a27393c3@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I would be quite confident that a major factor > affecting the issue is the concept of the nature > of the game, rather than 'fairness' as such. I guess this is a language problem too. I feel "against the nature/spirit of the game=unfair" and "within the nature/spirit of the game=fair" and really can't think of an example where this equivalence would break down. I really would not expect the WBF to decide that ES were "against the nature of game. (I refer to the types of ES we have discussed, of course if we use true encryption "we add his year of birth to my year of birth to the hand number and if even or prime we play..." this is, to me, clearly unfair/against the nature of the game.) JP Rocafort used the term "conditional" signals which I believe describes the distinction nicely. > I just > do not have a feel for whether we are at a stage > to admit the method to front rank play, and I think > it is 'fair' to note that front rank opinion is what > has opted for the WBF ban. A very different issue. I find the idea that methods with the potential to be innovative and interesting should be banned at the top level disappointing. However perhaps I could be persuaded that eg "The proliferation of HUMs (and we have classified ES as a HUM) disadvantages teams from countries without professional sponsorship." We are therefore restricting the number of HUMs approved for championship usage. > The suggestion that > the 'vote' was distorted in some way is wide of > the mark - I doubt if more than maybe two of > those I named voted with the minority against the > ban, it might only be one. I do not have exact > information, only observation to guide me. Suppose a representative starts the debate with the compatible views "ES are unfair","Anything fair should be permitted at World championships (with appropriate disclosure requirements)" A "one-stop" debate on the ban would receive his support. A two-stage debate, whereby he was persuaded to change belief 1 at the first stage, and then voted on the ban would lead to a different result. Or perhaps one (or more) of the voters thought he was banning "truly encrypted", but not "conditional" signals. Both of these would cause "distortion" in the final vote. Things like this are often hard to avoid - look what a rushed timetable does to parliamentary legislation. 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 Aug 8 20:26:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78APwC05381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:25:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78APit05377 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:25:51 +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 MAA18361; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:26:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA13904; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:25:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000808123429.0085f490@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:34:29 +0200 To: "Wayne Burrows" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych In-Reply-To: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:25 8/08/00 +1200, you wrote: > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the diverse >opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". However the >director was not called and therefore there was ruling or recording made of > this psych. The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded >as shown: 10xxx K AQJxx Axx 1s** 2c 3d*** 4c All Pass >* 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short diamonds. > ** 3-card suit Axx *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? If >so how strong is this evidence of a Partnership Understanding? AG : of course not ! It is a perfectly normal bid, showing poor spades, good diamonds, and a useful hand. Not allowing a clever player to describe his hand while given the space and time to do so would be excessive. 75% rule and all that. Even playing a natural system, I would bid 3D now. Just in case he has a diamond fit and wishes to bid 4D over 4C. >additional evidence would be required to determine that there was a PU? AG : well, perhaps if the opener doesn't lead spades now ... The spade lead should be the most useful (creating a spade trick for partner's KQxx while we have a club stopper) and the majority's choice; If the lead is a diamond t partner's king, well ... A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 20:54:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78As1B05401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:54:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Arst05397 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-210.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.210]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07888 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:53:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 20:42:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced an answer, and both got it wrong. Look at it again as a problem hand : Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > J 4 3 > Q 9 8 > A K > > K 3 2 > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > K 10 > J > contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club switch. > > Your turn. > -- 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 Aug 8 21:04:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78B4IV05419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78B49t05415 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA31015 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:04:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 13:04:57 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQ8DZU5620003A0@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:03:57 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:01:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:03:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'John Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B668@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: John (MadDog) Probst [mailto:john@probst.demon.co.uk] > Verzonden: dinsdag 8 augustus 2000 4:18 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > In article <014001c000b9$2d989ce0$0db5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman > writes > > snip > >> > >>there's no doubt in my mind that the Wendy Coup applies > here. You pull > >>a stop card with intent to bid 3C, Wendy walks past and then you > >>discover that: > >> > >>1) LHO has called > >>2) your stop card is green > >> > >>25A applies. > > > >This is a very offensive statement, mainly because it is too short. > > > >ton > > > > Wendy is a very beautiful barmaid, who wears (during what > passes for our > English summer) not much. If you have a choice of looking at > Stevenson > or Wendy during the auction it's a no-brainer. There are those of us > who drink half pints of beer in order to get her to the table twice as > often in order to pick up the glasses. The side tables are > very low and > so she needs to stoop to pick up the glasses. Since I drink about a > glass of beer every round, three things happen each round > > 1) Wendy arrives, picks up glasses from last round and > leaves. That's > board 1 out of the window. > > 2) I drink beer, need a pee-break and place the contract in partner's > hand. That's board 2 out of the window. After my rest-room > visit I go > to the bar to fetch another beer and chat to Wendy. > > 3) I'm late back for the third board and rush the auction, probably > putting a green stop card on the table while Wendy is > fetching partner's > glass. > > *Are you seriously telling me I can't change my inadvertant call?* > > btw 2NT is AI to RHO and LHO, UI to pard and me. > > But I said all this in my first response to the thread, and nothing > anybody has said has made me want to change my mind. The only helpful > comment was Robin's pointing out why do we have a 25A if we're not > allowed to use it. > > Is that long enough? cheers john No, it is much better than most of the stuff here, so why don't you extend it? (yes I know this is really offensive, I shouldn't say it. I include my own contributions) > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 21:11:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78BBUR05438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:11:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78BBIt05434 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:11:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA09529 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:11:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 13:12:13 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQ8N0LPWS0003AH@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:11:13 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:08:48 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:11:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B669@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 > > > > > >> > >-------------------- \x/ ------------------- > >> I am surprised that you are surprised. This is a > situation normal > >> enough to have occurred at my table perpetrated by an > opponent maybe > >> three times in the last six months: if that is the > frequency with me > >> playing, then presumably there are tens of thousands of occurrences > >> daily around the world. > >> > >> The player pulls out what he believes to be a Stop card > and puts it on > >> the table. He then pulls out his actual call, and as he > puts that on > >> the table he notices the Stop card is the wrong colour. He then > >> attempts to change that immediately. > >> > >> It is a common occurrence and I cannot see any reason why the > >> requirements of L25A are not met. > >> > >+=+ This is a very helpful description since it > >is outstandingly clear from it that the player > >has thought about two distinct matters, > >each involving a separate card from the > >bidding box. If you rule that the first (Pass) > >card is to be taken as a call, then in > >turning to the second card he has removed > >his attention from the call he has made > >and has given his attention to a further > >action. With the unmistakable refocusing > >of the player's thoughts 25A cannot now > >apply - if Law 25 is to be involved it is a > >Law 25B matter. > > If on the other hand you rule that > >the first (Pass) card does not constitute > >a call, Law 25 does not figure at all. It took me many minutes to refrain from what I wanted to say. ton > > Hmm. An unnecessary journey into semantics, I think. The player > intends a call. To make that call involves taking two separate cards > out of the box. He takes a card out of the box. That is part of his > call as far as he is aware. Assuming he has made an inadvertent error > in his choice of card then he has made an inadvertent call. Partial > only? Yes, but so what? > > > -- > 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 Aug 8 21:45:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Bilx05466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:44:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78Bigt05462 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:44:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from julie (p2-max20.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.157.2]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA10046 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:44:39 +1200 Message-ID: <005201c0012d$d84c2980$029d6dcb@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: Subject: [BLML] Unusual Methods Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:43:15 +1200 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01C00192.6C4B48A0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C00192.6C4B48A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have been following the threads on encryption and HUMs with some = interest... "coming from the part of the world with a relaxed attitude". My understanding of the arguments is that the inferences or knowledge = available to the players of these systems is not available readily to = those playing against them, and therefore these systems should be regulated to a level where this = can be understood. This level varies between countries and zones. Under the Law all players are entitled to a full and complete = explanation of the opponents methods, these include explicit and = implicit agreements and inferences. Surely what we want to emphasise is the above. I currently play a complex relay system (not a HUM) and have played = encrypted signals a while ago as well. At all times I felt the onus was = on myself to explain not only the agreements but all other relevant = information to the opps. Admittedly this could still be incomplete, but = no more than any other explanation may be. Currently I play UDCA signals... giving partner count, attitude, suit = preference dependant on what I think they want to know. This is at least = as fuzzy as telling the opps that I am giving std or reverse count = dependant on the length of a particular suit=20 or some other key. Surely, systems that improve the game will stay and those that bunny = crunch rapidly disappear. Providing some protection is given to the = average player,(restriction of level etc) experimentation has to be good = for the game.=20 Why don't we focus on the disclosure side of the issue instead of = arguing in circles about personal/zonal preference. Vitold and others = that agree with him, shouldn't need to study for weeks, but should = expect a complete explanation including all inferences. The higher the = level, surely the better and clearer this should be. When playing any = unusual system (HUM or otherwise) surely "general bridge experience" = becomes debatable and therefore all the onus is on the players of these = systems to provide the correct explanations. Julie Atkinson New Zealand ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C00192.6C4B48A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have been following the threads on = encryption and=20 HUMs with some interest...
"coming from the part of the world with = a relaxed=20 attitude".
 
My understanding of the arguments is = that the=20 inferences or knowledge available to the players of these systems is not = available readily to those playing against them,
and therefore these systems should be = regulated to=20 a level where this can be understood. This level varies between = countries and=20 zones.
 
Under the Law all players are entitled = to a full=20 and complete explanation of the opponents methods, these include = explicit and=20 implicit agreements and inferences.
 
Surely what we want to emphasise is the = above.
 
I currently play a complex relay system = (not a HUM)=20 and have played encrypted signals a while ago as well. At all times I = felt the=20 onus was on myself to explain not only the agreements but all other = relevant=20 information to the opps. Admittedly this could still be incomplete, but = no more=20 than any other explanation may be.
 
Currently I play UDCA signals... giving = partner=20 count, attitude, suit preference dependant on what I think they want to = know.=20 This is at least as fuzzy as telling the opps that I am giving std or = reverse=20 count dependant on the length of a particular suit
or some other key.
 
Surely, systems that improve the game = will stay and=20 those that bunny crunch rapidly disappear. Providing some protection is = given to=20 the average player,(restriction of level etc) experimentation has to be = good for=20 the game.
 
Why don't we focus on the disclosure = side of the=20 issue instead of arguing in circles about personal/zonal preference. = Vitold and=20 others that agree with him, shouldn't need to study for weeks, but = should expect=20 a complete explanation including all inferences. The higher the level, = surely=20 the better and clearer this should be. When playing any unusual system = (HUM or=20 otherwise) surely  "general bridge experience" becomes debatable = and=20 therefore all the onus is on the players of these systems to provide the = correct=20 explanations.
 
 
Julie Atkinson
New Zealand
 
------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C00192.6C4B48A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 22:03:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78C3HG05540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:03:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78C3Bt05536 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:03:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.174.212] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13M866-0002ty-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:03:07 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c00130$959b1300$d4ae01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:02:52 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > 253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced > an answer, and both got it wrong. > > Look at it again as a problem hand : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > > J 4 3 > > Q 9 8 > > A K > > > > K 3 2 > > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > > K 10 > > J > > > > contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club > switch. > > > > Your turn. I claim without stating a line of play, of course. Then, according to the Laws as interpreted on BLML, I am practically certain to make the contract against any defence and distribution. After all, a player of my class would never do whatever it is you have to do to go down. That would be completely irrational. At the table, I would win the club in dummy and play a low heart to the king. What I would do next depends on what happens to that trick, but I confess that I find it difficult to envisage a distribution on which I will go down unless the defence can get a ruff, about which there is little I can do. 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 Tue Aug 8 22:03:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78C3hD05552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:03:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78C3Xt05548 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:03:34 +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 MAA06835 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:03:23 GMT Message-ID: <398FF725.DAD58DF7@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:03:49 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael a écrit : > > 253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced > an answer, and both got it wrong. > > Look at it again as a problem hand : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > > J 4 3 > > Q 9 8 > > A K > > > > K 3 2 > > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > > K 10 > > J > > > > contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club > switch. > > > > Your turn. > > D10 on first trick, CA, then H3. Only when RHO has the 3 remaining trumps, dummy will not be reached with HJ, but it will then be possible to end-play RHO with the 3rd round of trumps (HK, HQ, DK, H2). Only 250 answers left to wait for. JP Rocafort > > -- > 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 22:07:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78C7B505566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:07:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78C72t05562 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:07:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA11242 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:06:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 14:07:57 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQAL41IWU000264@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:06:57 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:04:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:06:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , David Stevenson , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@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 > > There is no pause for thought if he attempts to change it once he > > realises what he has done. Yes, it is going to be nearly > instantaneous > > from *that* moment, but not from the moment you mention, > when the call > > clears the box. > > > +=+ The discussion is now about which of us is thinking > clearly. I don't think that to be the discussion at all. We all can think very clearly, but some of us tend to exaggerate the use of that gift. It appears to me that you wish to rule that > the action of the player in pulling out the wrong card > and placing it on the table constituted the making of > a call. Nobody can rule else, since 'pass' is a call by definition. As I understand it he did that before he turned > back to the bidding box and reached for another > card. We all agree on that. You wish to say that after he has completed > his call, when he goes to the box to take another card > he has not interrupted his thinking about the placing > of the first card. What are you saying? Then he turns his attention once > more to the table and says "that green card is not > a call, I did not intend it as such". That is probably not what he said (you sit down at bridge tables once in a while, isn't it?) He said: he picked out the bidding cards up to 3 clubs and putting them down he notices a pass card an says: oh shit, I wanted to bid 3 clubs. In the meantime his LHO has made a call (now I understand: you are sitting in the LHO position and you take your time to make a call and then this can't happen) > At this point it > seems to me that you can rule one of two things, > depending on the way you apply the regulation > about how a call is made: > 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without > apparent intent; no call was made", I tried to explain before that this interpretation is wrong in my eyes (and ears). The apparent intent is not meant to distinguish between 25A and 25B or to declare the pass not a call at all. But related to the intention to make a call. Why don't you consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong, by trying to convince us that it is right or agreeing it to be wrong. May be we should say here that for everybody else at the table and applying the laws the pass is a call. But not for the player who thought to have taken the stop card. Well, the TD will explain him that he in fact made a call. > or > 2." Unfortunately what you have done is to make > a call Yes, that is the only choice. > and when you went to the box to fish out > that Two Spades card you were not thinking > about the call of 'Pass' that you had made > but about a further action contemplated". Once more, what are you saying? The players intended to bid 'stop 2 spades'and now his muscles are exercising this wish. What 'further action contemplated'. > > What I resist is the suggestion that you can > decide the Pass was a call and that you can then > have the player going about making a second call > at that turn So for everybody else he seems to make a second call, but not for himself and not for the laws. and find, as a matter of fact, that > he has not 'paused for thought' - has thought > uninterruptedly about the Pass He never thought about the pass, you really are missing the facts here. > without turning his > thoughts to other things We agree, Wendy was still at the table. (I shouldn't make this joke, because you might use it for your benefit again, the player having other thoughts) > than a call he finished > making, by your ruling, when having selected > the Pass card he placed it on the table. > > Where I believe the problem lies is in a > suggestion that the player can interrupt his > thinking about the first action Do I need to repeat it? The first action he was thinking about was to put down the stop card, followed by 2 spades. He does not need a pause for thought to complete that, but the TD will tell him to first take back the pass card. He could do that mechanically, without thinking. But we are not interested in this proces in his mind. We just allow him, applying 25A the way it was menat for. > whilst he goes > about choosing the second card he will take > from the box, then go back to his first action, > resume thinking about it, and be deemed not > to have paused for thought. What did he do > in the interval if not think, and was it not a > pause? Wendy, you remember? Are you going to torture my LC meetings with these, your views? A question to finish with: could you describe a situation using bidding boxes, in which a player may change his call under 25A? No, we are not using screens. 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 8 22:17:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78CGc605590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:16:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78CGWt05586 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:16:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.174.212] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13M8J2-0004w8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:16:28 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c00132$73301f20$d4ae01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:16:13 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > 253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced > an answer, and both got it wrong. > > Look at it again as a problem hand : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > > J 4 3 > > Q 9 8 > > A K > > > > K 3 2 > > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > > K 10 > > J > > > > contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club > switch. > > > > Your turn. and I foolishly wrote: >At the table, I would win the club in dummy and play a low heart to the king. What I would do next depends on what happens to that trick, but I confess that I find it difficult to envisage a distribution on which I will go down unless the defence can get a ruff, about which there is little I can do. On reflection, suppose East has the singleton ace of diamonds and West the singleton ace of hearts. The opponents have misdefended, to be sure, if that is the case - but it's quite hard to find a defence that involves putting your partner in with a trump to give you a ruff. Perhaps I should discard the king of diamonds on the king of clubs, and then lead a heart to the king. 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 Tue Aug 8 22:21:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78CLVM05622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:21:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tantalum (tantalum.btinternet.com [194.73.73.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78CLLt05618 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:21:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.174.212] (helo=D457300) by tantalum with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13M8Nh-0006uV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: <006b01c00133$1f8d7ce0$d4ae01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B669@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:21:02 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > It took me many minutes to refrain from what I wanted to say. That's all right. Ton. As long as you weren't thinking during those minutes, you can say whatever you wanted without penalty. 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 Tue Aug 8 22:41:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78CfgS05661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:41:42 +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 e78CfYt05657 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:41:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id OAA15052 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:41:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 14:42:29 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQBRYCU4O0003DR@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:41:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:39:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:41:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66B@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 Don't put all the blame on David, I demand to get my share of it. Your summary is o.k., facts related. What you reproach to David is what your contribution lacks as well: explaining to us why it is not misinformation when you show a pass card when you want to show a stop card. The pass card carries a message, which is not the message the player wanted to give. I am almost sure that explaining this to a group of unbiased peers and asking them whether the word 'misinformation' is applicable here they would say yes: 'May be there is a better description to find, but O.K. misinformation it is'. Mind you, I am not talking about unauthorized information. Your move introducing the psyche to demonstrate I am wrong is not very convincing, I hope you will agree with that. The psyche is a deliberate call, giving exactly the information the player intends to give. Do you notice that I do not need the word 'infraction'to solve this problem, 21B with 'misinformation' suffices. And I admit (as I did before) that the laws should have been more clear about this. I know why they aren't, but that is my secret for the moment. Law 21B was not written for it, but helps remarkably adequate. Yes you lost some marks on this problem, but we always give some back if clarity breaks through. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: David Burn [mailto:dburn@btinternet.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 8 augustus 2000 8:45 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > DWS wrote: > > > >You're talking, not about the withdrawn "pass", but the call made, > > >and subsequently withdrawn, by the LHO of the person who put out > the > > >pass card, while intending to put out the stop card. This seems to > be > > >a Law 16C problem, not a Law 25 problem, so I've changed the > subject > > >line. > > > > The only thing I really disagree with in your post is changing the > > subject line. I am trying to find out how we should apply L25A in > its > > entirety. This is a thread about L25A. > > > > No problem with the rest of the post, since this is the first post > > that has answered the question set, despite being the 35th article > in > > the thread. > > I thought this was a discussion group. Had I known that it was > actually an examination room, with questions being set by David > Stevenson to a group of ardent seekers after knowledge, I would of > course have adopted a more suitably humble attitude. Moreover, had I > realised that threads were supposed to confine themselves to what > David Stevenson says they are about, I would never have ventured to > introduce into a "thread about L25A" anything unrelated to that wholly > admirable piece of legislation. > > The "question set" was: assuming the opening bidder changes his call > under L25A when his LHO has already called, and assuming L21B is used > to permit LHO to change his call thereafter, is LHO's withdrawn call > (a) AI to his side and (b) AI to his opponents' side? The consensus > appears to be that *if* those conditions are met, LHO's withdrawn call > is AI to his side (who are non-offenders) but UI to his opponents (who > are offenders). > > The rather tenuous basis for this consensus is that the opening bidder > has committed an "infraction", even though no one has actually been > able to say which Law he has broken or what his infraction is. People > have suggested that the action that caused him to change his call in > the first place, which was to pull a Pass card instead of the Stop > card out of the bidding box prior to opening three clubs, is the > "infraction" in question. However, this action does not contravene any > of the Laws of bridge except perhaps 74B1 - but this Law has been > adduced by no one as an argument for treating the opening bidder as an > "offender". > > The "question set" contained two assumptions which I and others have > had the temerity to challenge: that a change of call under L25A should > be permitted at all in the described circumstances; and that the > action of displaying a Pass card inadvertently conveys > "misinformation" to an opponent, thus permitting him to change his > call under L21B once the opening bidder has made his intended call. > > The correct answers - that is to say, the answers considered > "blindingly obvious" by David Stevenson - are that: of course L25A > applies, otherwise why do we have a L25A; and of course L21B applies > because... well, because it just does, and anyway there aren't any > other Laws we can use. These answers in turn contain certain > assumptions which... but I had better not continue, since I have > already lost enough marks on this question. > > 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 Tue Aug 8 22:44:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Cicb05673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:44:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78CiWt05669 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:44:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.17]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000808134336.VDSC3760.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:43:36 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c00136$81d733c0$1108ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:45:17 +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: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic > 253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced > an answer, and both got it wrong. > > Look at it again as a problem hand : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > > J 4 3 > > Q 9 8 > > A K > > > > K 3 2 > > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > > K 10 > > J > > > > contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club > switch. > > > > Your turn. > > Win CK. Cash CA overruffing if it's ruffed, throwing DK if it's not. Draw trumps losing at some tome to A. In position to overruff any minor return or accept Spade return for one loser. Throw Spade on DQ. Make contract having lost just 3 aces. 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 Aug 8 22:55:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Csjj05691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:54:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Csct05687 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:54:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 5.b7.5ae2c9c (4241); Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:54:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:54:13 EDT Subject: [BLML] Re: Law 25 To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hasn't David Burn hit the nail on the head? The action of putting a pass card on the table is a part of the actions needed to make a call at that turn. It does not of itself constitute a call. I did not see all of the beginning of this thread (I was away at work trying to apply the Laws in Argentina) and this might already have been said before. Since the piece of cardboard placed on the table was never meant as a call, it isn't a call. If, instead of a PASS, the player had mistakenly picked a DOUBLE out of the same part of the box would we apply Law 36? How can we apply a Law that treats with changing a call? Simple, no? A violation of proper procedure in making a call? An action which possibly causes entrapment of LHO? An attempt to apply a Law when the Rule (Bidding box regulations) is inadequate and faulty? It seems to me a much more cogent approach to not slavishly and blindly accept the "givens" of the stating of the problem. If you posit that no call has yet been made until the total actions have occurred, (unforeseen in our regulations) then the problem is not correctly stated, is it? Of course, I get a double "wrong" on the test, -- my previous posting treating it as a delayed call, and my unwillingness to accept the question as posed. My return to active flying is much easier. 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 Aug 8 23:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78D2k005712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:02:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78D2dt05708 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:02:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22373 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003b01c00104$280b4ca0$150d073e@D457300> References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003b01c00104$280b4ca0$150d073e@D457300> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:01:37 -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 "David Burn" writes: >I thought this was a discussion group. Had I known that it was >actually an examination room, with questions being set by David >Stevenson to a group of ardent seekers after knowledge, I would of >course have adopted a more suitably humble attitude. Moreover, had I >realised that threads were supposed to confine themselves to what >David Stevenson says they are about, I would never have ventured to >introduce into a "thread about L25A" anything unrelated to that wholly >admirable piece of legislation. No offense meant, but you're a prickly sort, aren't you? :-) >The "question set" was: assuming the opening bidder changes his call >under L25A when his LHO has already called, and assuming L21B is used >to permit LHO to change his call thereafter, is LHO's withdrawn call >(a) AI to his side and (b) AI to his opponents' side? The consensus >appears to be that *if* those conditions are met, LHO's withdrawn call >is AI to his side (who are non-offenders) but UI to his opponents (who >are offenders). > >The rather tenuous basis for this consensus is that the opening bidder >has committed an "infraction", even though no one has actually been >able to say which Law he has broken or what his infraction is. People >have suggested that the action that caused him to change his call in >the first place, which was to pull a Pass card instead of the Stop >card out of the bidding box prior to opening three clubs, is the >"infraction" in question. However, this action does not contravene any >of the Laws of bridge except perhaps 74B1 - but this Law has been >adduced by no one as an argument for treating the opening bidder as an >"offender". Um. Law 18F says that ZOs may authorize different methods of making calls. In this case, ZO regulations presumably specify how to use bidding boxes. That being the case, improper use of a bidding box is a violation of Law 18F. So, his infraction is putting the wrong card out to indicate "stop", in contravention of ZO regulations promulgated under Law 18F. How's that? >The "question set" contained two assumptions which I and others have >had the temerity to challenge: that a change of call under L25A should >be permitted at all in the described circumstances; and that the >action of displaying a Pass card inadvertently conveys >"misinformation" to an opponent, thus permitting him to change his >call under L21B once the opening bidder has made his intended call. Hm. If saying "I want to pass" instead of "I want to make a skip bid", when the latter is intended, isn't misinformation, what is it? >The correct answers - that is to say, the answers considered >"blindingly obvious" by David Stevenson - are that: of course L25A >applies, otherwise why do we have a L25A; and of course L21B applies >because... well, because it just does, and anyway there aren't any >other Laws we can use. These answers in turn contain certain >assumptions which... but I had better not continue, since I have >already lost enough marks on this question. Well, there's a pass card on the table. The player wants to change it to "stop, 3C". That sure looks like a change of call to me. What would you call it? If it's a change of call, the question is was it made "without pause for thought?" I suppose one would have had to be there, but it seems to me, given the information we have, that the answer is "yes". If it's not a change of call, I dunno. I suppose it depends on what it is. If it's a change of call, and it's made without pause for thought, then it can be made under Law 25A. May LHO now withdraw his call? Well, Law 21B says he can if it was based on misinformation from an opponent. If the inadvertent pass is misinformation, then, LHO can withdraw his call under Law 21B. If it's _not_ misinformation, as you say, there's no other law which would allow withdrawal. If he can't withdraw the call, then, if it's below three clubs (ISTR it was 1H or 1S) then it's an insufficient bid, and we apply Law 27. It may be a bid out of rotation, in which case Law 31 applies. Okay. How would _you_ feel if a TD ruled that way at your table? Me, I'd think he was nuts. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOZAE4r2UW3au93vOEQLnvACg9XunXqmtWixtbc/fTZFjWYnRas0AoMrw AhXG64Hd94P2D7RjDNYarSbr =0K40 -----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 Aug 8 23:03:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78D38X05724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:03:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78D2ut05718 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:02:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA09981 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 15:03:44 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQCJ9YYRU0003EJ@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:02:44 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:00:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:02:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] A bit off-topic To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66C@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: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: maandag 7 augustus 2000 20:43 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic > > > 253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced > an answer, and both got it wrong. > > Look at it again as a problem hand : > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > > J 4 3 > > Q 9 8 > > A K > > > > K 3 2 > > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > > K 10 > > J > > > > contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club > switch. > > > > Your turn. > > You forgot to tell that west opened the bidding with 'pass 3 diamonds' showing a very weak preempt. Now South being afraid of a ruff, discards his diamond K and claims 10 tricks. Everybody agrees and Wendy prevents the discovery of this crime at the beer drinking stage of the event. Don't tell me this is not the right answer. ton > 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 Tue Aug 8 23:19:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78DIYd05749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:18:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78DIQt05743 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id PAA24104 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:18:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 15:19:21 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQD2NBR8U0003F6@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:18:21 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:15:56 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:18:19 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66D@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: dinsdag 8 augustus 2000 14:21 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > Ton wrote: > > > It took me many minutes to refrain from what I wanted to say. > > That's all right. Ton. As long as you weren't thinking during those > minutes, you can say whatever you wanted without penalty. Almost as good as Wendy, I feel still young. 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 Tue Aug 8 23:40:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78DeId05792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:40:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp1.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78DeDt05788 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:40:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p50-tnt1.mel.ihug.com.au [203.109.152.50]) by new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA01074 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:40:11 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 23:32:58 +1000 To: Bridge Laws From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: <398EA58F.A27FE483@village.uunet.be> References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:03 7/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Now, L25A has a time limit. > >Until partner has called. > >This implies that there are cases possible where LHO has >already called, and we are still in a position to apply >L25A. > >And that is the situation. No more, no less. > >There has been a call (1) >There has been a call by LHO (2) >The player now realises that call (1) was made under all the >circumstances that make a change under L25A allowable, and >the TD agrees with this and allows the change. >There is now a new call (3) > >What happens to call (2) ? Yes this is the question that I think is interesting. >Nowhere is this said in the laws, but we all agree that the >only sensible solution is to apply L21B1 on this. I don't know how sensible this really is, since I tend to also question if any information can be really given by a truely inadvertent action. We have a Law (25A) which says in some circumstances an inadvertent call may be changed up to the point when partner calls, however it doesn't provide any real guidance about the status of the intervening call of LHO. If Law 25A allows a change, then Ton and David say that the only Law which will authorise us to also withdraw LHO's call is 21B. If this is true then I think we have a problem (at least for those including Grattan and Kojak who can't see any original mis-information which would be required in order to activate Law 21B). Why don't we admit that we have a situation that the Laws at the moment don't adequately handle? I think that both sides of this discussion are trying different (and obviously imperfect) approaches to avoid the above unpalative fact. One group is avoiding the issue by questioning whether the initial placement of the Pass card really constitutes a call. They also question the immediacy of the attempted change and cast doubts about single thought processes, which would thus allow them to apply 25B instead (which in reality does not permit a change after LHO has called). The other group happily feels that the conditions of 25A were fulfilled, but then resort to unsatifactory mis-information arguements in order to try to justify allowing LHO to also withdraw his call without penalty. If we are truely in a situation where the Laws don't provide for LHO, then maybe we should just accept this unfortunate situation and use the one Law provided for this impass. How about 12A2? Laurie (In 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 Aug 9 00:08:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78E8TL05825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:08:29 +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 e78E8Lt05821 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA03967 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:08:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 16:09:15 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQETIKKYK0003H5@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:08:16 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:05:51 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:08:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Law 25 To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66F@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 one of the problems keeping active in this discussion is that being silent could be explained as agreeing. If I were the teacher in Kojak's supposed examen it becomes a 'triple' wrong, because the inadvertent pass IS a call as is the double he introduces. Law 18 A says so. See below. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 8 augustus 2000 14:54 > Aan: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > CC: Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk > Onderwerp: [BLML] Re: Law 25 > > > > Hasn't David Burn hit the nail on the head? > > The action of putting a pass card on the table is a part of > the actions > needed to make a call at that turn. It does not of itself > constitute a call. What has to be done to make it a call then? Not objecting before partner subsequently calls if he calims 25A applies and not objecting before LHO calls in case he wants to use 25B to change his call? > I did not see all of the beginning of this thread (I was away > at work trying > to apply the Laws in Argentina) and this might already have > been said before. > Since the piece of cardboard placed on the table was never > meant as a call, > it isn't a call. Well, I agree that this approach would be a very handy one, but the laws do not treat it like that. And it doesn't seem necessary. And I see all kind of problems arising. What are you doing now with a call made by LHO before the player finishes to make his 'call'? And what law do you use then? If, instead of a PASS, the player had > mistakenly picked a > DOUBLE out of the same part of the box would we apply Law 36? No, not if the TD is convinced the double was taken out inadvertently. We apply 25A dealing with indvertent CALLS. > How can we apply a Law that treats with changing a call? > Simple, no? A > violation of proper procedure in making a call? An action > which possibly > causes entrapment of LHO? An attempt to apply a Law when the > Rule (Bidding > box regulations) is inadequate and faulty? > It seems to me a much more cogent approach to not slavishly > and blindly > accept the "givens" of the stating of the problem. If you > posit that no call > has yet been made until the total actions have occurred, > (unforeseen in our > regulations) The big problem with this approach is that the (mis)information given to the others at the table makes it impossible for them to understand that the call is not been made yet. Putting a pass card on the table in 99,99% of the cases will be the total action in that turn (there are to few Wendy's around). But let us take this step. What then is the difference in the effect compared with the 25A and 21B approach? Is there another outcome? > then the problem is not correctly stated, is it? > Of course, I get a double "wrong" on the test, -- my previous posting > treating it as a delayed call, and my unwillingness to accept > the question as > posed. > > My return to active flying is much easier. As a pilot you mean? We agree on the passenger role. ton > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 00:26:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78EPcL05887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:25:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78EPVt05883 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:25:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA23989 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:25:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 08 16:26:26 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSQFETTQ020003HV@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:25:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:23:01 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:25:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Laurie Kelso'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B670@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 > > If Law 25A allows a change, then Ton and David say that the > only Law which > will authorise us to also withdraw LHO's call is 21B. I never used the word 'only' here. And I myself in an early stage drew the conclusion that the laws don't cover this problem explicitly. But 21B is not so bad to use in this case and I still persist that misinformation is given. (Remarkble to notice that many say that there is no misinformation, without anybody explaining this view. Isn't that too easy?) If > this is true then > I think we have a problem (at least for those including > Grattan and Kojak > who can't see any original mis-information which would be > required in order > to activate Law 21B). > > Why don't we admit that we have a situation that the Laws at > the moment > don't adequately handle? I think that both sides of this > discussion are > trying different (and obviously imperfect) approaches to > avoid the above > unpalative fact. > > One group is avoiding the issue by questioning whether the initial > placement of the Pass card really constitutes a call. They > also question > the immediacy of the attempted change and cast doubts about > single thought > processes, which would thus allow them to apply 25B instead (which in > reality does not permit a change after LHO has called). > > The other group happily feels that the conditions of 25A were > fulfilled, > but then resort to unsatifactory mis-information arguements > in order to try > to justify allowing LHO to also withdraw his call without penalty. > > If we are truely in a situation where the Laws don't provide > for LHO, then > maybe we should just accept this unfortunate situation and > use the one Law > provided for this impass. > > How about 12A2? Always happy to meet constructive ideas. We could do that if there hadn't been a reasonable other solution in which the board can still be played. Don't tell me you can't make a choice between 25A and B in this case. I challenge the whole world (253 people) to give me an example in which 25A is applicable, showing the difference with this case where it shouldn't be. This is really too much for a tired man. I was supposed to work for the government this afternoon. With equal poor results probably. ton > Laurie > (In 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 Aug 9 00:27:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78ERGq05899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:27:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78ER9t05895 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:27:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.90.135] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13MALM-0000cl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 15:27:01 +0100 Message-ID: <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:26:46 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > It appears to me that you wish to rule that > > the action of the player in pulling out the wrong card > > and placing it on the table constituted the making of > > a call. > > Nobody can rule else, since 'pass' is a call by definition. So it is. But I think what Grattan is trying to say is that whereas a player who passes does so by taking out a pass card, thus "making the call" of "pass", the converse is not true. That is, a player who merely takes out a pass card has not necessarily passed, since he did not take out the pass card *with intent*. Your view and DWS's is that the player *has* passed, but has "misinformed" his opponents because passing was not what he wanted to do. After he has passed, he changes his call to 3C, and you apply L25A to allow a change of call. But Grattan thinks - and I must say, his interpretation of the bidding box regulations appears to me to be in accordance with the words they use - that the player has *not* passed, so there is no call to be changed. If, in order for a call to be made, the bidding cards corresponding to that call must be removed from the bidding box "with intent", then I believe Grattan is correct. The player has not made the call of "pass". The question is, of course: what has he done? As far as the rest of the table is concerned, he has passed - they don't know what his intent was until he reveals it at a later time. But according to him - and according to the regulations - he has not passed, since he did not mean to pass. This, it seems to me, is another case of Schrodinger's Cat - the player can be regarded as existing in a superposition of states, until some measurement of his intent is taken. Of course, we can't have bridge played like that. If every time my RHO passes, I have to ask him whether he meant to pass before I can make ny call, the game will be even slower than it would be if people claimed properly. And of course, the bidding box regulations do not use the phrase "with intent" - I have been using it above deliberately in order to simplify Grattan's argument. The bidding box regulations use the phrase "with apparent intent". Now, I would venture to suggest that if a man goes so far as to take a green card all the way out of a box, and put it all the way onto a table, without indicating in any way that this is not what he means to do, then his apparent intent should be regarded as corresponding to his actions. I would, if pushed by the rabbit lobby, allow this degree of leeway: that if *before* his LHO calls, he gives some indication that he has acted inadvertently, he be allowed to change his call - but not afterwards. > > At this point it > > seems to me that you can rule one of two things, > > depending on the way you apply the regulation > > about how a call is made: > > 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without > > apparent intent; no call was made", > > I tried to explain before that this interpretation is wrong in my eyes (and > ears). The apparent intent is not meant to distinguish between 25A and 25B > or to declare the pass not a call at all. But related to the intention to > make a call. Why don't you consider the possibility that your interpretation > is wrong, by trying to convince us that it is right or agreeing it to be > wrong. Oh, I'm quite convinced that Grattan's interpretation of the bidding box regulations is the correct one. > May be we should say here that for everybody else at the table and > applying the laws the pass is a call. But not for the player who thought to > have taken the stop card. Well, the TD will explain him that he in fact made > a call. And he will say: "But it says in your regulations that to make a call, I have to take the card out of the box with apparent intent. Well, I didn't mean to take the card out of the box at all, so I can't have taken it out with any kind of intent, so I haven't made the call." If your reply to that is: "It looked as though you meant to take out the pass card", then your intepretation coincides with mine as to what "apparent intent" means. However, it may be that other people have other views, and it may be that their views are correct (or at any rate, worth hearing). > > or > > 2." Unfortunately what you have done is to make > > a call > > Yes, that is the only choice. Not really. As I have said elsewhere, suppose a player says "Pass - three clubs" instead of "Stop - three clubs". Has he passed? No, he's bid three clubs. But, if there is a long pause after the word "Pass" during which the player is not thinking about the fact that he has said "Pass" and not "Stop" - he's just play-acting, the way some people do - what call has he made? > > What I resist is the suggestion that you can > > decide the Pass was a call and that you can then > > have the player going about making a second call > > at that turn > > So for everybody else he seems to make a second call, but not for himself > and not for the laws. Quite so. That is the essence of Schrodinger's Bridge Player. For himself, he is making one call - three clubs. For eveyone else, he is making two calls - pass, followed by three clubs. But for the laws, what is he doing? > Are you going to torture my LC meetings with these, your views? I hope so. It's got to be sorted out somehow. "A call once made may not be changed", anyone? 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 Aug 9 00:27:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78ERcX05911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:27:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78ERYt05907 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:27:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack (p129-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.129]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id CAA08727 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:27:32 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000809022527.007c52a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:25:27 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: [BLML] re: Encrypted signalling. Brown sticker conventions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: The people who decide what systems players are allowed to play in their events, whether the Auckland BC, the ACBL or the WBF are not the WBFLC. Such people may regulate conventions however they like, but may not regulate natural bids. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So if I read you right here David you are saying that you may not regulate against a natural one level opener just because it doesn't meet some arbitrary rule of 18. Does it also mean that you can't restrict the use of or the conventions used in response to a 1NT opener that systmeically shows a balanced 8-10 points? Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 00:32:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78EWm205924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78EWft05920 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:32:42 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:32:37 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 17:32:36 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > Sent: 08. August 2000 16:02 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > "David Burn" writes: > > >I thought this was a discussion group. Had I known that it was > >actually an examination room, with questions being set by David > >Stevenson to a group of ardent seekers after knowledge, I would of > >course have adopted a more suitably humble attitude. Moreover, had I > >realised that threads were supposed to confine themselves to what > >David Stevenson says they are about, I would never have ventured to > >introduce into a "thread about L25A" anything unrelated to > that wholly > >admirable piece of legislation. > > No offense meant, but you're a prickly sort, aren't you? :-) > > >The "question set" was: assuming the opening bidder changes his call > >under L25A when his LHO has already called, and assuming L21B is used > >to permit LHO to change his call thereafter, is LHO's withdrawn call > >(a) AI to his side and (b) AI to his opponents' side? The consensus > >appears to be that *if* those conditions are met, LHO's > withdrawn call > >is AI to his side (who are non-offenders) but UI to his > opponents (who > >are offenders). > > > >The rather tenuous basis for this consensus is that the > opening bidder > >has committed an "infraction", even though no one has actually been > >able to say which Law he has broken or what his infraction > is. People > >have suggested that the action that caused him to change his call in > >the first place, which was to pull a Pass card instead of the Stop > >card out of the bidding box prior to opening three clubs, is the > >"infraction" in question. However, this action does not > contravene any > >of the Laws of bridge except perhaps 74B1 - but this Law has been > >adduced by no one as an argument for treating the opening > bidder as an > >"offender". > > Um. Law 18F says that ZOs may authorize different methods of making > calls. In this case, ZO regulations presumably specify how to use > bidding boxes. That being the case, improper use of a bidding box is > a violation of Law 18F. So, his infraction is putting the wrong card > out to indicate "stop", in contravention of ZO regulations > promulgated under Law 18F. How's that? > > >The "question set" contained two assumptions which I and others have > >had the temerity to challenge: that a change of call under > L25A should > >be permitted at all in the described circumstances; and that the > >action of displaying a Pass card inadvertently conveys > >"misinformation" to an opponent, thus permitting him to change his > >call under L21B once the opening bidder has made his intended call. > > Hm. If saying "I want to pass" instead of "I want to make a skip > bid", when the latter is intended, isn't misinformation, what is it? > > > >The correct answers - that is to say, the answers considered > >"blindingly obvious" by David Stevenson - are that: of course L25A > >applies, otherwise why do we have a L25A; and of course L21B applies > >because... well, because it just does, and anyway there aren't any > >other Laws we can use. These answers in turn contain certain > >assumptions which... but I had better not continue, since I have > >already lost enough marks on this question. > > Well, there's a pass card on the table. The player wants to change it > to "stop, 3C". That sure looks like a change of call to me. What > would you call it? > > If it's a change of call, the question is was it made "without pause > for thought?" I suppose one would have had to be there, but it seems > to me, given the information we have, that the answer is "yes". > > If it's not a change of call, I dunno. I suppose it depends > on what it is. If your LHO hasn't bid yet it is a change of call. If he has it is a BOOT. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 00:38:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Eclq05941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:38:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Ecet05937 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 00:38:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA10510 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02107 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:38:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008081438.KAA02107@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S > >> B 14 6 Pairs > >> 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 > >> J943 P 2H#2 P 2N > >> QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N > >> 852 QT973 AP > >> K2 A9763 > >> 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG > >> A73 #2 Negative > >> AKJ4 #3 Transfer > >> QJT > >> AKQ > >> > >> South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. > >>He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely > >>were playing transfers. > >> > >> North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and > >>believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he > >>wants to play there. > >> > >> It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only > >>one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. > From: David Stevenson > The reason it matters is that normally when pd makes an obvious > transfer break but has not alerted the transfer, converting to the major > is an LA and the ruling to that major is near-automatic. Just to add to the confusion :-), it strikes me that 4C by north might also a LA. If South dislikes spades (i.e. the 3NT bid without the UI), he might have length in the minors, and there might well be a slam. On the other hand, the conditions are matchpoints, so maybe 4C doesn't reach 25-30%. Even if irrelevant to this case, I think it's high enough to be a LA in North America. If you do think 4C is a LA, it isn't at all obvious to me where it will lead. Probably 4S, but I could be convinced of 5S or even some club contract. All this raises an interesting legal point. Suppose the TD believes 4C is 17% (=1/6) likely and 4S is 17% likely, so neither by itself is a LA, but the sum of the two is. (Even if you believe these bridge judgments are ludicrous on this hand, it isn't hard to imagine a different hand where they would make sense.) I believe the correct ruling is then that the pass is illegal, since it is only 66% which is less than the required 70 or 75%. If this is correct, we should make sure to explain to players that the rule is a 70 or 75% rule, not a 25% or 30% rule. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 01:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78F6C805983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:06:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78F62t05979 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04528 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:02:49 -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 Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: >If your LHO hasn't bid yet it is a change of call. If he has it is >a BOOT. I might buy that, if Law 25A said "Until his LHO makes a call". But that's not what it says, so I don't. 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/AwUBOZAh0r2UW3au93vOEQJwdQCgtd6QET3X3zf/gk3OvJYjV0lFDj8AoK1M 98GiC9gMMXNZV8NTdko2VsGm =gOuA -----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 Aug 9 01:30:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78FULn06010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:30:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78FUFt06006 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:30:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12115; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 08:26:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200008081526.IAA12115@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Aug 2000 10:38:36 PDT." <200008081438.KAA02107@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 08:26:53 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > >> E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S > > >> B 14 6 Pairs > > >> 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 > > >> J943 P 2H#2 P 2N > > >> QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N > > >> 852 QT973 AP > > >> K2 A9763 > > >> 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG > > >> A73 #2 Negative > > >> AKJ4 #3 Transfer > > >> QJT > > >> AKQ > > >> > Just to add to the confusion :-), it strikes me that 4C by north might > also a LA. If South dislikes spades (i.e. the 3NT bid without the UI), > he might have length in the minors, and there might well be a slam. On > the other hand, the conditions are matchpoints, so maybe 4C doesn't > reach 25-30%. Even if irrelevant to this case, I think it's high > enough to be a LA in North America. I might agree with you if North had about a king more. As it is, with South presumably showing about 23-24+ balanced (I don't know the system), I can't imagine any North looking for a club slam at any form of scoring. You pretty much need perfect cards in the South hand for a slam to be good. If there's no fit, 4NT is likely to be too high. -- 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 Aug 9 02:04:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78G3ZU06054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:03:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78G3Tt06050 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:03:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h95.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.95]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78G3IX03779 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:03:18 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39902EE6.E8088DA8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 20:01:43 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] HUMS References: <3.0.3.32.20000808172538.007ba990@pop.ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------1EAB5C78A3E2A0133B7559F2" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1EAB5C78A3E2A0133B7559F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------1EAB5C78A3E2A0133B7559F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="HUM2.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="HUM2.txt" Hi all:) Once more I'd like to underline that we discuss rather the Laws and regulations problems - not bidding theory. So - I am ready to continue pure technical discussion via private posts with any blml-participants. Am not afraid of public discussion - guess it will be too boring for blml. Below I'll try to limit myself...:) Mark Abraham wrote: "What you want to know is the entire bidding structure after the 1C opening. While in principle this is valid, it is impossible to achieve in practice, even for a "natural" standard system. Take the "standard" auction 1C-1H-1S-2D-3C-3NT. First consider opener's hand. Depending on the style, opener's shape Could readily be balanced or unbalanced. They might be 4333, 4234, 4324, 4225, 4135, 4315, 3145, 3154, 4xx6, 5xx5, 5xx6, 5026 with any of these potentially precluded by agreement or style. When would opener rebid 1NT? When would opener rebid 2H over 2D? 2S over 2D? 2D over 1H? 2NT over 2D? 3NT over 2D? Was 2D forcing to game, or just for one round? Was it natural? Is this a pickup partnership such that there was no firm agreement about 2D? When would an artificial 2D be used, rather than leaping directly to 3NT? Does opener promise/deny/neither a diamond stopper? Thus does responder promise a diamond stopper? Would responder bypass a long diamond suit to bid 1H? On what hands? On what subsets of the hands would he then not rebid 3D after 2D? What did responder's rebids of 2S, 2C, 3C and 2NT mean?" Sorry Mark - but so called "standard naturals" (note for Richard Willey - so 4-cards major as 5-cards major) are based on principles that were maily worked out in 30-th by Ely. Combining these principles with Alert regulations (for example - from ACBL or EBU, anyway) one may rather without too hard working understand main meanings and even features of opponents' hands. I guess a most your questions are resolved by Alerts (or their absence): for example, do you really think that it may be possible rebid 3Clubs without 5 cards? I guess that 3-cards should be alerted. And even 4-cards treatment in this bidding should be alerted... Another variants depend on the meaning of 2Diamonds, etc. And all the procedure of questioning will take no more than 2 minutes after the bidding period. And even less - cause mostly information is put down in CCs. But what did you suggest? Not to ask because of time problems? Come on, it is problem of pair that uses artificial and highly artificial systems. I advise (in my BC) that the more complicated is system of a pair - the more time penalties would be imposed rather on that pair than on their opponents. > 3. At this example - who would be Declarer in Spade contrat? In Heart? In > Diamond? In NT? "At the able you know this automatically..." But this knowledge is sufficient in estimation of Patrick's conclusion: it might happen that 3NT was bid because other contracts (theoretically better ones, with fit on Spades or Hearts) would be played from responder's hand and captain had reasons not to bid them... It may be clear during questioning - not for sure, but nevertheless. > Only after receiving these (and several similar) questions I will make > conclusions about relayer's distribution. Am I right, Patrick? Or is your > analise rather too light? And it may happen that ALL Patrick's conclusions > are WRONG:) "No Vitold, they're dead correct." See above:) The only 100% (hmm - 98%) conclusion is that there is (rather - should be) stopper in Clubs. Patrick wrote: "Vitold's argument seems to indicate that he needs to know everything about a system in order to understand all the options the opponents had in the bidding in order to defend against it. This is the justification for the estimated time to prepare a defence being 'weeks' If that is true then it means that any new system would be unfair because the opponents would need 'weeks' to study it in order to understand all the bidding options and prepare properly to defend against it." Not any new system: natural and semi-natural systems that based on classic or well known principles (as your example) do not need too much time for preparing defense so on bidding as on card-playing. The HUM-oriented systems really need a lot of time - because they are constructed on absolutely new (and often unknown) principles. And I am really need to know everything about the system while we are going to fight for the best result. And the more complicated are your methods - the more is your responsibility to make them understandable. The nearer they to HUM - the more obligations are on their users. And it was free will and free decision of players to use HUM. But who will protect rights of non-HUM-players to have possibilities for fighting in equal conditions? To win "solely by skill, flair and normal playing luck"? (ACBL Code of Active Ethics). On the contrary: if we are playing for enjoying, in friendly club's atmosphere - we may use any methods and have fun:) Best wishes Vitold P.S. - am really ready to continue pure technical discussion on advantages and Disadvantages of HUMs - but only privatly:) --------------1EAB5C78A3E2A0133B7559F2-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 02:09:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78G9Rn06068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:09:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78G9Kt06064 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:09:21 +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 e78G9ac32781 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:09:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000808120425.00aa8100@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:11:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] re: HUMS In-Reply-To: <001801c00095$3f72f740$23c3e080@isi.com> References: <398EEBE1.BDFE0977@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:30 PM 8/7/00, Richard wrote: >Pardon me for what might be an oversimplication, however ... >The core to Vitold's argument with respect to HUMs boils down to >inferences. >Vitold is arguing that pairs playing against a HUM will not be fully >informed about all of the negative inference available throughout an >auction. > >The problem with this argument is that it is in no way specific to a >HUM. > >Case in point. >The vast majority of tournament players in the United States are ONLY >experienced with 5 card major systems. >Most of them have no real understanding of standard 4 card major >systems. let alone anything as "incomprehensible" as Polish Club. >The inferences available in many bread and butter auctions will be >completely different playing Acol than if playing Standard American. Over the years I have repeatedly stated that I can teach any bridge player EHAA in 20 minutes. A few years ago my wife informed me that this was not true. I asked why. She said, "I've heard your 20 minute explanation. The last thing you say to people is 'anything I haven't covered is straight out of old-fashioned Goren', and you've been getting blank looks when you say that! Nobody knows anything about old-fashioned Goren any more." >If we follow Vitold's logic, then we should ban 4 card majors here in >the US since the average >tournament player is not equipped to understand 4 card major >practictioner's auctions. Don't say that; don't even think it. It might happen. There are those involved in the ACBL's current revision of their alert procedure (there was a three-year moratorium on revisions, which recently expired) who are lobbying for making four-card major openings alertable. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 02:21:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78GKwC06092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:20:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78GKnt06088 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:20:50 +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 MAA18796 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA03856 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:20:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008081620.MAA03856@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 > From: "Grattan Endicott" [one possible ruling might be] > 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without > apparent intent; no call was made", or Is there something about "apparent intent" that isn't obvious to the rest of us? In the problem as stated, the "green stop card" looked like a normal bid to everyone else at the table. Is that not "apparent intent?" The rest of the problem goes on to say that there wasn't _actual_ intent, i.e. the pass card was inadvertent. Nevertheless, the call seems to have been "made" under the bid box regulations in use in most of the world. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 02:34:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78GYBk06110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:34:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f249.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78GY6t06106 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:34:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:33:58 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.21 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 09:33:58 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2000 16:33:58.0389 (UTC) FILETIME=[738E3A50:01C00156] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced >an answer, and both got it wrong. > >Look at it again as a problem hand : > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > Q 9 8 6 4 > > J 4 3 > > Q 9 8 > > A K > > > > K 3 2 > > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > > K 10 > > J > > > >contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club >switch. What's the question? I win the club switch, play another club pitching a spade, then play the JH. Do clubs split 9-1? If I were expecting that, which I'm not based on this narative, I'd play the 4H to the KH hoping that hearts don't split 3-0 and that the JH is an entry to board. -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 Wed Aug 9 02:34:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78GYWg06116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:34:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78GYOt06112 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:34:25 +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 e78GYe566137 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:34:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000808122949.00aab520@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:36:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: <040c01c000cd$36f69800$866860cb@laptop> References: <398DF504.DE56F8E7@elnet.msk.ru> <018a01c0001b$299c4cc0$866860cb@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:39 PM 8/7/00, Wayne wrote: >Ok but let me make more point clearer. > >WBF are jumping on unusual artificial methods and some here and elsewhere >are defending that position. But in my opinion if it is a valid argument to >do this because it is difficult to prepare against such methods then it is >an equally valid argument to restrict unusual natural methods for the same >reasons. I suspect Wayne is overlooking the context of the debate, namely that L40 permits the WBF to "jump on" unusual artificial methods while explicitly not permitting them to treat unusual natural methods similarly. In theory, I agree that he is correct; i.e. that if L40 permitted unlimited restriction of natural methods, we would be discussing the WBF's position on "unusual methods" rather than on "unusual artificial methods". 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 03:16:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78HG8Z06181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:16:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f170.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78HG3t06177 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:15:55 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.21 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.21] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 10:15:55 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2000 17:15:55.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FBE6270:01C0015C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >In-Reply-To: <003701c00087$a1e68d00$a27393c3@pacific> >Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I would be quite confident that a major factor > > affecting the issue is the concept of the nature > > of the game, rather than 'fairness' as such. > >I guess this is a language problem too. >I feel "against the nature/spirit of the game=unfair" >and "within the nature/spirit of the game=fair" >and really can't think of an example where this equivalence would >break down. I find it hard to demonstrate this without going to the absurd. In pinochle there's a rule that you must play a higher card than what's on the table when the trick comes around to you if you can legally do so. It's fair, but far outside the nature of bridge. -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 Wed Aug 9 03:49:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78HnCi06213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:49:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Hn5t06209 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:49:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p11s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.18] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MDSi-0007Cc-00; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:46:49 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c00160$9b6eec40$128893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:43:46 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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' ; David Stevenson ; bridge-laws Sent: 08 August 2000 13:06 Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > --------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- > > At this point it > > seems to me that you can rule one of two things, > > depending on the way you apply the regulation > > about how a call is made: > > 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without > > apparent intent; no call was made", > > I tried to explain before that this interpretation is wrong in my eyes (and > ears). The apparent intent is not meant to distinguish between 25A and 25B > or to declare the pass not a call at all. But related to the intention to > make a call. Why don't you consider the possibility that your interpretation > is wrong, by trying to convince us that it is right or agreeing it to be > wrong. May be we should say here that for everybody else at the table and > applying the laws the pass is a call. But not for the player who thought to > have taken the stop card. Well, the TD will explain him that he in fact made > a call. > -------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- Hi ton (et al) Let me make clear that I have been reading your posts to this thread particularly, and also most of the others. No doubt you find it very irritating that I continue to challenge the thinking. But then I always did that with Edgar, too, and the style of response - from him in a letter, from you an email - bears no striking resemblance. He always responded equably, urbanely, without a hint of the impatience or whatever it is that you show periodically, and with much insight - if not always into the laws then into the debates that surround them. We no longer have anyone of Edgar's calibre and we are both under direction by the committee that will not allow of the creation of law on the hoof by one of us, or by Kojak or another for that matter. Specifically the capacity of an Edgar to create law by publishing an opinion in Bridge World, or as perhaps now through internet exchanges, is denied to us. And so it should be. So let me say again, as I do regularly, that opinions I put forward are opinions and have no force of law unless the committee decision is to hand for quotation. It has been suggested to me that it is desirable for each of us who debates on the internet to publish this caveat at regular intervals, but we can express opinions, and there is no bar to disagreement or to exploration and counter-exploration. So let me continue to explore. I wrote: > > and find, as a matter of fact, that > > he has not 'paused for thought' - has thought > > uninterruptedly about the Pass > and you responded: > > He never thought about the pass, you really are missing the facts here. > +=+ I did not think he had thought about the Pass. But it has been ruled that the Pass was a call which he had made. Going back to 1984-7 I recall the discussion in which the committee noted that Law 25A said "without pause for thought" and did not add anything to suggest the thought had to be about the inadvertent call. We were of a mind that whether the player thought about a change of mind or whether his thoughts digressed to some other subject, the requisite immediacy had been broken and he could not be considered to have attempted a change of call without pause for thought. The law said that, as we read it, and we left it as it was. So I looked at what actually happened here and I challenged the suggestion that he could be said to have attempted to change the inadvertent Pass without pause for thought. He made that Pass by the Director's ruling when the green card went on the table. If there was to be no pause for thought before the attempt to change the Pass he is decreed to have made, he had to speak immediately when the Pass occurred and without intervention of thoughts about other matters, such as a Three Clubs bid. Now that is a possibility that I would hope merits some consideration, since it is based upon what I know of the intentions 1985-87. I do NOT ask you to agree, nor anyone, and I make neither claim nor concession to a proprietary monopoly of canonical truth. ~ 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 Aug 9 03:54:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78HsnT06229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:54:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f92.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Hsit06225 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:54:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 10:54:36 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.18 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.18] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 10:54:36 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2000 17:54:36.0346 (UTC) FILETIME=[B733E1A0:01C00161] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Kooijman, A." >A question to finish with: could you describe a situation using bidding >boxes, in which a player may change his call under 25A? No, we are not >using screens. Most any and all inadvertant calls. For me, the problem is that when the bidder sees that his LHO has bid, there is a thought process involved in getting from his LHO's bid to realizing that he has miscalled. I don't see the important difference between this and remembering he's using a different bidding system and then realizing he's made a mistake. There is a difference of original intent -- the green stop card player never intended to pass, but the laws/regulations make no reference to actual intent. As far as the misinformation thing.... Misinformation in bidding has traditionally been an incorrect explanation of a bid or a failure to alert. There was no explanation of the pass nor was it alertable. The idea of misinformation during the auction as anything else is, to me, unprecedented. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it is a new idea. -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 Wed Aug 9 03:56:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Hu9M06242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:56:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e78Hu2t06238 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:56:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 96252 invoked for bounce); 8 Aug 2000 17:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.160) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 8 Aug 2000 17:55:57 -0000 Message-ID: <016d01c00162$1cbf5d60$a03a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> <004501c00106$a5426f80$150d073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:39:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 Burn" wrote: > DWS wrote: > > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Here is a practical example that I am using to try an guage the > > diverse opinions of blml regarding "PU on psychic bidding". > > > > Warning I was at the table. However the director was not called > > and therefore there was ruling or recording made of this psych. > > > > The dealer held the following hand and the bidding proceded as > > shown: > > > > 10xxx > > K > > AQJxx > > Axx > > > > 1d* X 1s** 2c > > 2s 3c P P > > 3d*** 4c All Pass > > > > * 1d was some version of Precision that may have included short > > diamonds. > > > > ** 3-card suit Axx > > > > *** Is 3d an attempt to field a possible psych? > > Subsidiary question: did 2S show four cards, or could it be three? A 3 card raise of a 3 card suit?? > Not that it matters much, but the > "knee-jerk" three diamond bidders have > fractionally more of a case if they have already shown four spades. > > > No, it is the correct bid on the hand. Nothing else appeals. > > It isn't the correct bid on the hand. If partner can be relied upon > not to psyche, then he is marked with five spades (not because his 1S > bid systemically showed them, but because if he has only four spades > then the opponents have at least nine hearts, and we can be fairly > sure from the rest of the auction that the opponents don't have nine > hearts). This is a nice clue from the bidding you spotted, but you seem to have missed its corollary: if partner does indeed have 5 spades (and I think he might have four good spades and four small hearts), he will certainly bid 3 spades over 3D. In case partner would be on lead, we want a D lead, not a spade lead. In case RHO will be declarer, we want partner to switch to a D. 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 Wed Aug 9 04:44:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78IiI806283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:44:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78IiBt06279 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:44:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-126.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.126]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C147C36B09; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:45:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002d01c00167$a33395a0$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:35:54 +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: David Burn To: bridge-laws Date: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A >Ton wrote: > >> It appears to me that you wish to rule that >> > the action of the player in pulling out the wrong card >> > and placing it on the table constituted the making of >> > a call. >> >> Nobody can rule else, since 'pass' is a call by definition. > >So it is. But I think what Grattan is trying to say is that whereas a >player who passes does so by taking out a pass card, thus "making the >call" of "pass", the converse is not true. That is, a player who >merely takes out a pass card has not necessarily passed, since he did >not take out the pass card *with intent*. Your view and DWS's is that >the player *has* passed, but has "misinformed" his opponents because >passing was not what he wanted to do. After he has passed, he changes >his call to 3C, and you apply L25A to allow a change of call. But >Grattan thinks - and I must say, his interpretation of the bidding box >regulations appears to me to be in accordance with the words they >use - that the player has *not* passed, so there is no call to be >changed. > >If, in order for a call to be made, the bidding cards corresponding to >that call must be removed from the bidding box "with intent", then I >believe Grattan is correct. Help, we seem to disagree about life itself almost. And since you are a reasonable person, it has to be the laws and/or regulations. I have a proposal for this group to start with. Discussions like this one get rather unorganized, partly because so many take part, partly because of lack of discipline. You for example continue to phrase the regulations regarding the use of bidding boxes repeating what Grattan said already. But in the meantime I replied saying that ' with apparent intent' should not be explained the way Grattan does. You ignore completely my remark and continue the line Grattan started drawing. You are too well educated to assume that you ignored my view because the other one was more helpful, but discussions become difficult this way. My proposal is that when one reacts on a statement saying it is wrong, implicitly or explicitly, at least one argument is used to support that view. This is not only polite it also makes the discussion more productive and tidy. Let me repeat why I think that 'with apparent intent' should not be read as cancelling the possibility to make an inadvertent call. In the first place this seems in contradiction with the laws, where inadvertent calls are possible. In the second place we can't handle this approach. Somebody makes a call after which his LHO makes a call. Now he convinces the TD that he didn't want to make this call. In your approach he then didn't make that call. What to do with LHO's call then: out of turn? So we are creating a lot of extra problems. I even can't use 21B anymore. These are arguments why it should not read like you propose. Now I'll try to explain why it doesn't read as you propose. With 'apparent intent' we wanted to distinguish between taking out a bidding to make a call (inadvertent, thought about, out of turn etc. etc.) and to do something else: like looking for the score of 3D redoubled vulnerable with 2 overtricks, or to rearrange the cards, because Zia Mahmood used them in the previous round. It does say: 'with the apparent intent to make a call' and not '..... to make that call'. And it also says 'but law 25 may apply' and not 'but law 25B may apply', which could be explained as both 25A and 25B apply. Since we are in a learning proces here, I stop arguing and ask you to give your opinion about these arguments before continuing. There is another possibility: to ask the ACBL (where this regulation comes from) what it meant and how they apply it. May be the EBU has a surprise (if not for you then for me). I can assure you that in our federation we follow my explanation, an oases of tranquility. ton The player has not made the call of >"pass". The question is, of course: what has he done? As far as the >rest of the table is concerned, he has passed - they don't know what >his intent was until he reveals it at a later time. But according to >him - and according to the regulations - he has not passed, since he >did not mean to pass. This, it seems to me, is another case of >Schrodinger's Cat - the player can be regarded as existing in a >superposition of states, until some measurement of his intent is >taken. > >Of course, we can't have bridge played like that. If every time my RHO >passes, I have to ask him whether he meant to pass before I can make >ny call, the game will be even slower than it would be if people >claimed properly. And of course, the bidding box regulations do not >use the phrase "with intent" - I have been using it above deliberately >in order to simplify Grattan's argument. The bidding box regulations >use the phrase "with apparent intent". Now, I would venture to suggest >that if a man goes so far as to take a green card all the way out of a >box, and put it all the way onto a table, without indicating in any >way that this is not what he means to do, then his apparent intent >should be regarded as corresponding to his actions. I would, if pushed >by the rabbit lobby, allow this degree of leeway: that if *before* his >LHO calls, he gives some indication that he has acted inadvertently, >he be allowed to change his call - but not afterwards. Yes, I understand. The reason not to react on this is that the discussion is not directed to change laws at this moment, but to apply the laws as they exist. > >> > At this point it >> > seems to me that you can rule one of two things, >> > depending on the way you apply the regulation >> > about how a call is made: >> > 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without >> > apparent intent; no call was made", >> >> I tried to explain before that this interpretation is wrong in my >eyes (and >> ears). The apparent intent is not meant to distinguish between 25A >and 25B >> or to declare the pass not a call at all. But related to the >intention to >> make a call. Why don't you consider the possibility that your >interpretation >> is wrong, by trying to convince us that it is right or agreeing it >to be >> wrong. > >Oh, I'm quite convinced that Grattan's interpretation of the bidding >box regulations is the correct one. That is what I meant above. You should do better than this. We are playing 'yes - no' too often. > >> May be we should say here that for everybody else at the table and >> applying the laws the pass is a call. But not for the player who >thought to >> have taken the stop card. Well, the TD will explain him that he in >fact made >> a call. > >And he will say: "But it says in your regulations that to make a call, >I have to take the card out of the box with apparent intent And the TD will say: you should read the whole sentence sir. It says with the apparent intent to make a call. >I didn't mean to take the card out of the box at all, So why did you take it out of the box then? Mind you, when Zia was there before, the player most probably will not put the card in the 'called position' . So the TD has a reasonable possibility to consider the call being made, still not knowing whether it is inadvertent or not. so I can't have >taken it out with any kind of intent, so I haven't made the call." If >your reply to that is: "It looked as though you meant to take out the >pass card", then your intepretation coincides with mine as to what >"apparent intent" means. However, it may be that other people have >other views, and it may be that their views are correct (or at any >rate, worth hearing). > >> > or >> > 2." Unfortunately what you have done is to make >> > a call >> >> Yes, that is the only choice. > >Not really. As I have said elsewhere, suppose a player says "Pass - >three clubs" instead of "Stop - three clubs". Has he passed? No, he's >bid three clubs. But, if there is a long pause after the word "Pass" >during which the player is not thinking about the fact that he has >said "Pass" and not "Stop" - he's just play-acting, the way some >people do - what call has he made? > >> > What I resist is the suggestion that you can >> > decide the Pass was a call and that you can then >> > have the player going about making a second call >> > at that turn >> >> So for everybody else he seems to make a second call, but not for >himself >> and not for the laws. > >Quite so. That is the essence of Schrodinger's Bridge Player. For >himself, he is making one call - three clubs. For eveyone else, he is >making two calls - pass, followed by three clubs. But for the laws, >what is he doing? > >> Are you going to torture my LC meetings with these, your views? > >I hope so. It's got to be sorted out somehow. "A call once made may >not be changed", anyone? > >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 Wed Aug 9 04:51:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78IpUU06299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:51:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78IpNt06295 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:51:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4qj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.83]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA04863; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000601c00169$ec4c6f80$5313f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Patrick" Subject: Re: [BLML] re: Encrypted signalling. Brown sticker conventions Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:53:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Patrick >David Stevenson wrote: > > > The people who decide what systems players are allowed to play in >their events, whether the Auckland BC, the ACBL or the WBF are not the >WBFLC. > > Such people may regulate conventions however they like, but may not >regulate natural bids. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > So if I read you right here David you are saying that you may >not regulate against a natural one level opener just because it >doesn't meet some arbitrary rule of 18. One would presume this could only be regulated against if it involved an opening that was a king less than average. But you could ban the use of conventions over such an opening lawfully. Whether you should is quite a different kettle of fish. > > Does it also mean that you can't restrict the use of or the >conventions used in response to a 1NT opener that systmeically >shows a balanced 8-10 points? > No, DWS said plainly that they may regulate the use of conventions. (Law 40D I presume). 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 Wed Aug 9 04:54:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78IsF106313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:54:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Is9t06309 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:54:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:54:05 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 19:32:46 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > Sent: 08. August 2000 18:03 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > >If your LHO hasn't bid yet it is a change of call. If he has it is > >a BOOT. > > I might buy that, if Law 25A said "Until his LHO makes a call". But > that's not what it says, so I don't. > > Regards, > > Ed > This is the essence of our disagreement. Nothing that has been said so far in this thread convinced me that a pass card put on the table doesn't constitute a call being made (this view is not contradictory with any of Laws in TFLB neither with the "apparent intent" WBF guideline). So to me a pass put on the table is a call that has been made unless the passer _immediately_ says "Sorry I didn't mean that!". If it takes that long that LHO is able to make a call using bidding boxes that I simply can't think of opener changing his call "inadvertantly, without a pause for thought". So we are in the L25B territory. And L25B applies "Until LHO calls". So this is a BOOT. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 05:56:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Ju5f06366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 05:56:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78Jtwt06362 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 05:55:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-171.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.171]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 613DF36BB2; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:56:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006c01c00171$ab93db60$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:33:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ------------------- \x/ ----------------------- >> > At this point it >> > seems to me that you can rule one of two things, >> > depending on the way you apply the regulation >> > about how a call is made: >> > 1." It was a card withdrawn from the box without >> > apparent intent; no call was made", >> >> I tried to explain before that this interpretation is wrong in my eyes (and >> ears). The apparent intent is not meant to distinguish between 25A and 25B >> or to declare the pass not a call at all. But related to the intention to >> make a call. Why don't you consider the possibility that your interpretation >> is wrong, by trying to convince us that it is right or agreeing it to be >> wrong. May be we should say here that for everybody else at the table and >> applying the laws the pass is a call. But not for the player who thought to >> have taken the stop card. Well, the TD will explain him that he in fact made >> a call. >> >-------------------------- \x/ ----------------------- >Hi ton (et al) > Let me make clear that I have been reading your >posts to this thread particularly, and also most of the >others. No doubt you find it very irritating that I continue >to challenge the thinking. That is not the main problem. What we should strive for is to convince the other by showing him that his arguments are lacking consistency, are not valid because ..... not by repeating previous statements. I try to do that seriously and if I don't succeed please tell me. I would like the others to do the same. otherwise these discussions are withour merit. But then I always did that with >Edgar, too, and the style of response - from him in a >letter, from you an email - bears no striking resemblance. >He always responded equably, urbanely, without a hint >of the impatience or whatever it is that you show >periodically, and with much insight - if not always into >the laws then into the debates that surround them. > We no longer have anyone of Edgar's calibre >and we are both under direction by the committee >that will not allow of the creation of law on the hoof by >one of us, or by Kojak or another for that matter. This is part of what I meant above, this continuing statement is like a warning on a package of cigarettes and I don't want to smoke even. >Specifically the capacity of an Edgar to create law by >publishing an opinion in Bridge World, or as perhaps >now through internet exchanges, is denied to us. And >so it should be. So let me say again, as I do regularly, >that opinions I put forward are opinions and have no >force of law unless the committee decision is to hand >for quotation. It has been suggested to me that it is >desirable for each of us who debates on the internet to >publish this caveat at regular intervals, but we can >express opinions, and there is no bar to disagreement >or to exploration and counter-exploration. > So let me continue to explore. I wrote: >> >> and find, as a matter of fact, that >> > he has not 'paused for thought' - has thought >> > uninterruptedly about the Pass >> >and you responded: >> >> He never thought about the pass, you really are missing the facts here. >> >+=+ I did not think he had thought about the Pass. But >it has been ruled that the Pass was a call which he had >made. Going back to 1984-7 I recall the discussion in >which the committee noted that Law 25A said "without >pause for thought" and did not add anything to suggest >the thought had to be about the inadvertent call. We >were of a mind that whether the player thought about a >change of mind or whether his thoughts digressed to >some other subject, the requisite immediacy had been >broken and he could not be considered to have attempted >a change of call without pause for thought. The law said >that, as we read it, and we left it as it was. This is new information for sure. I don't think many in this group were aware of this 1984-7 discussion. But is it helpful? We should try to create an understanding about 25A that is applicable. It is the most difficult law to apply and TD's need good instructions. So it might be a good idea to discuss it again in the LC. > So I looked at what actually happened here and I >challenged the suggestion that he could be said to have >attempted to change the inadvertent Pass without pause >for thought. He made that Pass by the Director's ruling >when the green card went on the table. If there was to be >no pause for thought before the attempt to change the >Pass he is decreed to have made, he had to speak >immediately when the Pass occurred As David S. tried to explain already: when using bidding cards our experience is that a player not always is aware of his mistaken bidding card at the moment it is put on the table. He assumes to have taken the card he wanted to take. The call is still supposed to be inadvertent. What happens if he realises his mistake not immediately? You agreed earlier that the laws allow to apply 25A till a later moment. and without >intervention of thoughts about other matters, such as a >Three Clubs bid. I really don't understand what you are saying here. Isn't the 3 club bid the only thing he is allowed to think of? That is what he wanted to bid. Now that is a possibility that I would >hope merits some consideration, since it is based upon >what I know of the intentions 1985-87. I do NOT ask you >to agree, nor anyone, and I make neither claim nor >concession to a proprietary monopoly of canonical truth. To be honest, I sometimes really hope that somebody agrees, though I never ask for that either. > ~ 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 Aug 9 06:50:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78KmLS06412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 06:48:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78KmEt06408 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 06:48:15 +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 e78KmUP16196 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:48:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000808155054.00b3ed80@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:50:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley In-Reply-To: <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:29 PM 8/7/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >At 08:26 PM 8/5/00, David wrote: > > > >> E/--- K8654 Swiss W N E S > >> B 14 6 Pairs > >> 854 [Matchpoints] P 2D#1 > >> J943 P 2H#2 P 2N > >> QT92 J P 3H#3 P 3N > >> 852 QT973 AP > >> K2 A9763 > >> 8752 T6 #1 Benjamin, 23+ Bal or FG > >> A73 #2 Negative > >> AKJ4 #3 Transfer > >> QJT > >> AKQ > >> > >> South forgot they were playing transfers and thus did not alert 3H. > >>He decided to bid 3NT because he had no ruffing value. They definitely > >>were playing transfers. > >> > >> North has UI, of course, but they do not play transfer breaks, and > >>believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he > >>wants to play there. > >> > >> It was the Director's belief that 4S over 3NT was not an LA since only > >>one in ten of the player's peers playing similar methods would bid 4S. > > > >Why should this matter? The UI available to North was that South thought > >North held hearts rather than spades. That UI suggests that North might do > >better to bid 4S rather than pass 3NT, which he didn't do. Had he, we'd > >have rolled the contract back to 3NT, as that would be the non-suggested > >LA. Since North didn't make use of the UI he had (by bidding over 3NT), > >there was no UI-related infraction. > > The reason it matters is that normally when pd makes an obvious >transfer break but has not alerted the transfer, converting to the major >is an LA and the ruling to that major is near-automatic. Normally true. But David states above that "they do not play transfer breaks, and [North] believes that partner's only possible reason for bidding 3NT is that he wants to play there". I assumed that the TD has determined this as a point of fact, and accepted it in formulating my reply. > >> West led the H5 against 3NT and South made ten tricks: she said she > >>would have found a different lead if she had know 3H was a transfer. > > > >OK, now we need to rule on the MI; a whole different issue. I'll leave it > >to the AC to decide whether West might have led the S2, and whether this > >would have induced declarer to decline the heart finesse, resulting in only > >9 tricks. > > Oh, Eric! You are running a one-day Current Match Assignment Swiss >Pairs, 7x7 board matches, making boards up at the start of the round, 56 >tables which is a lot for one scorer, and your scorer has never done the >job before, and your caddies have never dealt with exactly this type of >tourney before. Ok, the scorer is trying valiantly [I have to say that, >he reads BLML]. You are basically running on a schedule which for a lot >of reasons is going to finish at least an hour late, and possibly two, >and you need an appeal like a hole in the head. Could we not just let >the Director rule correctly and forget about ACs? OK. I had hoped to delineate the issues without having to analyze the hand. But here goes. If W leads a S honor a H or DK, S makes 10 tricks. I don't believe W's leading the S2 or D2 is at all probable. So allow W to lead a club. S will cash CAKQ and might then play a D. Now W can either win and play S2, or duck to E for the SJ shift. Neither seems all that likely. But S might duck a S at trick 4, win the H return high, cash SA, and switch to D. Now E will almost certainly rise DK and play SQ, and S will continue D, making 3. That sounds like "the most favorable result [for E-W] that was likely", and leads to making 3. But I'd be happier to see this go to an AC, who could afford the time to talk to W and determine whether it really is at all probable that he might have led a C (or for me to have had the time to do this on my own). After all, if he led H5 thinking N had shown H, he would probably either have done so anyway or led S10 with correct information. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 07:22:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78LMU806444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:22:31 +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 (f144.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.144]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78LMPt06440 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 14:22:17 -0700 Received: from 134.134.248.22 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:22:17 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Aug 2000 21:22:17.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[BAB4EBE0:01C0017E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "ton kooijman" >As David S. tried to explain already: when using bidding cards our >experience is that a player not always is aware of his mistaken bidding >card >at the moment it is put on the table. He assumes to have taken the card he >wanted to take. The call is still supposed to be inadvertent. As a matter of consistency, why is it that when a card is exposed on the table with intent it is considered played even if it were not the intended card? You're allowed a slip of the tongue in calling cards from dummy, but not a slip of the hand in drawing cards. But you're allowed both in terms of bidding. >What happens >if he realises his mistake not immediately? You agreed earlier that the >laws >allow to apply 25A till a later moment. Is the method of how he realizes his mistake at all important? -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 Wed Aug 9 07:49:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78LnhO06478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:49:43 +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 e78Lnat06474 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.145] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MHFV-000KQo-00; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:49:26 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Laurie Kelso" References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman><001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:54:45 +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: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A --- \x/ -------- > We have a Law (25A) which says in some circumstances an inadvertent call > may be changed up to the point when partner calls, however it doesn't > provide any real guidance about the status of the intervening call of LHO. > +=+ The reason (accurate) why the law was written to terminate changes at the point when partner calls, was that as initially conceived - with LHO's call terminating the right - it was thought clever LHOs might jump in with quick calls in order to fix the player with his first call. The decision has its drawbacks. +=+ > > If Law 25A allows a change, then Ton and David say that the only Law which > will authorise us to also withdraw LHO's call is 21B. If this is true then > I think we have a problem (at least for those including Grattan and Kojak > who can't see any original mis-information which would be required in order > to activate Law 21B). > +=+ If we must go down the 25A road, which I think unlikely, then I am convinced that there has been a breach of regulations governing the use of bidding boxes and the infraction allows reference to 16C. +=+ > > Why don't we admit that we have a situation that the Laws at the moment > don't adequately handle? I think that both sides of this discussion are > trying different (and obviously imperfect) approaches to avoid the above > unpalative fact. > +=+ It is widely accepted that Law 25 is a monster. It is time we killed it but the WBFLC has said it must live until 2005. We could possibly worry what will take its place.+=+ > > One group is avoiding the issue by questioning whether the initial > placement of the Pass card really constitutes a call. They also question > the immediacy of the attempted change and cast doubts about single thought > processes, which would thus allow them to apply 25B instead (which in > reality does not permit a change after LHO has called). > +=+ At least these solutions do not seek to manufacture a law that has not been written yet ~ 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 Aug 9 07:50:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78LosX06491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:50:55 +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 e78Lomt06487 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:50:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.145] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MHFY-000KQo-00; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:49:28 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c00182$89a5e1e0$915608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "Grattan Endicott" , "ton kooijman" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "David Stevenson" References: <006c01c00171$ab93db60$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:48:36 +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: Grattan Endicott ; Kooijman, A. Cc: 'Grattan Endicott' ; David Stevenson ; bridge-laws Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A _________- \x/ __________ > This is new information for sure. I don't think many in this group were > aware of this 1984-7 discussion. But is it helpful? We should try to create > an understanding about 25A that is applicable. It is the most difficult law > to apply and TD's need good instructions. So it might be a good idea to > discuss it again in the LC. > +=+ I agree that the 1987 debate might not really help, except in explaining to you why I do not immediately jump into bed with all those who think there is no pause for thought. As we thought in 1987 there has been a significant break, and turning to other things, after the Pass became a call.+=+ > > > So I looked at what actually happened here and I > >challenged the suggestion that he could be said to have > >attempted to change the inadvertent Pass without pause > >for thought. He made that Pass by the Director's ruling > >when the green card went on the table. If there was to be > >no pause for thought before the attempt to change the > >Pass he is decreed to have made, he had to speak > >immediately when the Pass occurred > > As David S. tried to explain already: when using bidding cards our > experience is that a player not always is aware of his mistaken bidding card > at the moment it is put on the table. He assumes to have taken the card he > wanted to take. The call is still supposed to be inadvertent. What happens > if he realises his mistake not immediately? You agreed earlier that the laws > allow to apply 25A till a later moment. > +=+ I am not without experience of bidding cards. However, the law is not written to pay obeisance to players' frailties - if he runs up against the law he may gain sympathy if he does it inadvertently, but this does not alter the law (whatever we think it is). No matter how slow he is to realise his mistake, there must be a cut-off at which point he cannot claim there was no pause for thought. We have different doubts, you and I, as to where that point is. Suppose partner asks some explanations of LHO's call and dealer says 'but I haven't bid yet'? I think there is some difficulty in arriving at that later moment without pause for thought from the time the Pass call was made +=+ > > and without > >intervention of thoughts about other matters, such as a > >Three Clubs bid. > +=+ I do appreciate that there is a difficulty in grasping my point here; it is a little subtle and not easy to express, But here goes again! The call he wants to change is 'Pass'. We have to decide whether that call ('Pass') was made - we are saying 'yes', without prejudice - and inadvertent - yes - and the change attempted 'without pause for thought'. I think we can agree that Three Clubs and Pass are different calls; so when the player is thinking about 3C he is not thinking about 'Pass'. You want to time the pause from the point of realisation of the error even though delayed - we don't do that with spoken bids do we? - and I say it has to be all one with making the call and immediacy in correcting it. You cannot make the call, spend some time thinking about a different call, and then claim you had been thinking only about the call you want to change. Or so it seems to me. Not that it might not be better to have a different law when using bidding boxes and I suppose this could be achieved by Law 80E regulation. +=+ > > To be honest, I sometimes really hope that > somebody agrees, though I never > ask for that either. > +=+ You sigh! But you know there is more to be gained from researching a disagreement than will ever be gained from docile acquiescence. Just so long as we (both) stay adult about 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 Wed Aug 9 08:35:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78MZKG06561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:35:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78MZEt06557 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:35:15 +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 SAA04421 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10228 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:35:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008082235.SAA10228@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 > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Going back to 1984-7 I recall the discussion in > which the committee noted that Law 25A said "without > pause for thought" and did not add anything to suggest > the thought had to be about the inadvertent call. We > were of a mind that whether the player thought about a > change of mind or whether his thoughts digressed to > some other subject, the requisite immediacy had been > broken and he could not be considered to have attempted > a change of call without pause for thought. The law said > that, as we read it, and we left it as it was. This is very interesting indeed. Just to recap the history: 1963 (and before?) to 1975: L25A said "without pause." (The law had a different number then, but I'm giving the equivalent law with present numbering.) Many interpreted this to mean "in the same breath." Bidding boxes were rare. 1975 to 1997: L25A was "without pause for thought." According to Kaplan (in TBW), the "for thought" protected a player who knew immediately that he had said the wrong thing but couldn't manage to get the correction out right away. I'm interpreting, but the example was something like "One spa. Oh no, I mean... one heart." Under the 1963 Laws, the change would not have been allowed because of the delay in saying "heart." But after 1975, since the pause was not "for thought," the change became allowable. In 1984 to 1987, as far as I can tell from Grattan's note, the LC's thinking was pretty much along the lines Kaplan laid out. The indication of desire to change the call ("Oh, no") had to come without pause, although the change itself ("one heart") could come later. Meanwhile, bidding boxes came into wide use. Grabbing the wrong bidding card is far more common than speaking the wrong call, and authorities decided to interpret L25A very liberally. Somehow the interpretation came into being that "without pause" means no pause after _recognizing_ the error rather than after _making_ the erroneous call. (How did this happen?) Thus L25A corrections can come after quite a long delay, even long enough for several calls. (You can imagine a player not noticing he has put the wrong bidding card on the table until the auction comes back to him or maybe not even then.) 1997 to present: the new laws add "until partner has called." This is consistent with the new interpretation and not really consistent with the 1984-1987 understanding. (LHO, let alone partner, can hardly have called if "Oh, no" comes without pause.) If a L25A change is possible until partner has called, it is at least theoretically possible that it will be made after LHO has called. Unfortunately, the laws fail to say explicitly what happens to LHO's call in that case. It seems reasonable to let him change it, as is done when a player legally changes an action in other circumstances, but there is no law explicitly providing for the change. L21B is pressed into service to allow the change. And here we are! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 08:55:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78MtX806586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:55:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e78MtQt06582 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 3.6a.5851c17 (4392); Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:55:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <6a.5851c17.26c1e9d3@aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 18:55:15 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A To: dburn@btinternet.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 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/8/00 10:28:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dburn@btinternet.com writes: > > Are you going to torture my LC meetings with these, your views? > > I hope so. It's got to be sorted out somehow. "A call once made may > not be changed", anyone? > > David Burn > London, England > Count me in. I didn't think that the WBFLC meetings belownged to an individual to start with. 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 Wed Aug 9 08:55:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78Mtn606600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:55:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e78Mtbt06590 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MIHT-000PvQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:17:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <3a.8b9a980.26bf1c38@aol.com> <8faOWZB4Vhj5EwyL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003b01c00104$280b4ca0$150d073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <003b01c00104$280b4ca0$150d073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> >You're talking, not about the withdrawn "pass", but the call made, >> >and subsequently withdrawn, by the LHO of the person who put out >the >> >pass card, while intending to put out the stop card. This seems to >be >> >a Law 16C problem, not a Law 25 problem, so I've changed the >subject >> >line. >> >> The only thing I really disagree with in your post is changing the >> subject line. I am trying to find out how we should apply L25A in >its >> entirety. This is a thread about L25A. >> >> No problem with the rest of the post, since this is the first post >> that has answered the question set, despite being the 35th article >in >> the thread. > >I thought this was a discussion group. Had I known that it was >actually an examination room, with questions being set by David >Stevenson to a group of ardent seekers after knowledge, I would of >course have adopted a more suitably humble attitude. Moreover, had I >realised that threads were supposed to confine themselves to what >David Stevenson says they are about, I would never have ventured to >introduce into a "thread about L25A" anything unrelated to that wholly >admirable piece of legislation. Oh, come off it, David. Even in discussion groups it is often considered reasonable when a question is asked to answer the question rather than some other one. It is not just me. We have had some occasions where others have asked BLML questions, and their complaint [reasonable in my view] is that no- one answered. I do find it unfortunate that in parts of the Laws where I do not see my way you think it offensive that I should not only ask but actually expect an answer. So, if I am not to ask BLML, whom do I ask? -- 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 Aug 9 08:56:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e78MtwA06607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 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 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 e78Mtbt06591 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MIHT-000PvR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 23:55:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:19:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Misinformation in risley References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000807093045.00b3ce90@pop.cais.com> <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@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 John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <2NWjTXBqJ2j5EwCS@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>Eric Landau wrote: > >DWS >> Oh, Eric! You are running a one-day Current Match Assignment Swiss >>Pairs, 7x7 board matches, making boards up at the start of the round, 56 >>tables which is a lot for one scorer, and your scorer has never done the >>job before, and your caddies have never dealt with exactly this type of >>tourney before. Ok, the scorer is trying valiantly [I have to say that, >>he reads BLML]. You are basically running on a schedule which for a lot >>of reasons is going to finish at least an hour late, and possibly two, >>and you need an appeal like a hole in the head. Could we not just let >>the Director rule correctly and forget about ACs? >> >> >DWS fails to point out that appeals are resolved before the assignments >for the next round in the UK. Are you willing to wait for the extra 15 >minutes? cheers I fail to point it out because it isn't true. Any appeal would have been heard at the end. -- 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 Aug 9 10:13:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e790CTe06677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:12:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e790CMt06673 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:12:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.93.56] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13MJTk-0003f1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 01:12:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c00196$71f6dd60$664c063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002d01c00167$a33395a0$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:12:01 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > >If, in order for a call to be made, the bidding cards corresponding to > >that call must be removed from the bidding box "with intent", then I > >believe Grattan is correct. > > Help, we seem to disagree about life itself almost. And since you are a > reasonable person, it has to be the laws and/or regulations. I am not sure that we disagree about life. My own view of it is a bit like my view of using Law 21B in this situation. It's an awful thing to do - but the alternative is probably worse. Moreover, I wasn't arguing that I myself believed the man had not passed. As you know, my opinion is that when a man has taken a pass card out of his box, he has passed, and he has no business doing anything else until the next three players have called. He has not "informed" his LHO that he has passed or that he wanted to pass; he has just passed. But Grattan, with the bidding box regulations to guide him, suggests that he might after all not have passed. I was trying to explain that I think Grattan has a point when he challenges the use of L25A in the first place, and to help others to understand what that point was (since Grattan's language, though a model of precision, is not as easy as it might be for non-English speakers to understand at first reading). The question on the examination paper said, in effect: "assuming that it's OK to use L25A, and assuming it's OK to use L21B, what is the status of LHO's call"? Well, we could all have tried to answer that question, and we would (probably) all have come up with the view that it's AI to his side but UI to the opponents. But to some of us this seemed a bit silly, so what some of us did was to challenge the assumptions on which it was based. Grattan and others have addressed the use of 25A; I and others have addressed the use of 21B. This, it seems to me, is a valid way for a group like this to spend its time; it may be, after all, that our difficulty with the status of LHO's call leads us to the conclusion that perhaps it is not appropriate to use 25A or 21B, because we are led to an untenable position. On the other hand, it is not clear to me that we should spend much time answering questions like: "Assuming that bananas are purple, what colour are oranges?" > I have a proposal for this group to start with. Discussions like this one > get rather unorganized, partly because so many take part, partly because of > lack of discipline. You for example continue to phrase the regulations > regarding the use of bidding boxes repeating what Grattan said already. But > in the meantime I replied saying that ' with apparent intent' should not be > explained the way Grattan does. I said this: >And of course, the bidding box regulations do not >use the phrase "with intent" - I have been using it above deliberately >in order to simplify Grattan's argument. The bidding box regulations >use the phrase "with apparent intent". Now, I would venture to suggest >that if a man goes so far as to take a green card all the way out of a >box, and put it all the way onto a table, without indicating in any >way that this is not what he means to do, then his apparent intent >should be regarded as corresponding to his actions. This means, or at least I intended it to mean, that there should be a distinction between "with intent" and "with apparent intent", and that I believe (contrary to Grattan's suggestion) that according to the bidding box regulation as written, the man had indeed made a call of "pass". I am sorry if this was not clear, but... > You ignore completely my remark and continue > the line Grattan started drawing. ...I don't think that was what I was doing. > You are too well educated to assume that > you ignored my view because the other one was more helpful, but discussions > become difficult this way. No, no. Both views are helpful, even if in the end only one of them can be the "right" one in terms of how the game is actually ruled. > My proposal is that when one reacts on a > statement saying it is wrong, implicitly or explicitly, at least one > argument is used to support that view. This is not only polite it also makes > the discussion more productive and tidy. Well, we have the following position (after Herman): (1) A player has taken the Pass card out of the bidding box. In his own mind, he has not passed, but from the point of view of the rest of the table, he has passed. Because of events following his action, it has become necessary to determine one way or another what he has actually done. (2) There is a regulation which it is possible to interpret as meaning that he has not passed, because passing was not what he intended. If one uses that interpretation, then he has not made a call of "Pass", so that the Law relating to his "change of call" cannot operate. Unfortunately, this regulation leaves us unable to proceed, because there are no Laws that (explicitly or implicitly) cover the situation. It may be that the regulation should be reconsidered, or it may be that the Law should be reconsidered. All that can be said at the moment is that the two appear incompatible. (3) If the player has not passed, then he has not made any call, and his LHO's opening bid is a call out of rotation. But this seems inequitable, because his LHO had every reason to think that it was in fact his turn to call. Therefore it is convenient for us to assume that the player has in fact passed - however, this does not mean that Grattan is wrong to challenge the assumption. (4) If the player has passed, then his LHO's call is in rotation. The player now appears to be permitted to change his call of "Pass" to his intended call. If he does that, then we have a difficult situation in respect of the call made by his LHO (which, among other things, may now be insufficient). It is convenient for us to assume that LHO's call is "based on misinformation" - however, that does not mean that I am wrong to challenge the assumption. > Let me repeat why I think that 'with apparent intent' should not be read as > cancelling the possibility to make an inadvertent call. In the first place > this seems in contradiction with the laws, where inadvertent calls are > possible. In the second place we can't handle this approach. Somebody makes > a call after which his LHO makes a call. Now he convinces the TD that he > didn't want to make this call. In your approach he then didn't make that > call. What to do with LHO's call then: out of turn? So we are creating a lot > of extra problems. I even can't use 21B anymore. Please try to remember that this is not my approach; it is my paraphrase of a point made by Grattan. I agree with you, as I have said in the extract I quoted from my earlier message and elsewhere, that the player has made a call of "Pass", whether he wanted to make it or not. The fact that this creates a lot of extra problems is not, however, my fault. It is the fault of the people who decided that a player should be allowed to change his call after his LHO has called. *That* is what is creating the problem, and it is important to recognise this fact and not to say: "Well, he is allowed to do it, so there must be some way around the difficulty it creates." > These are arguments why it should not read like you propose. Now I'll try to > explain why it doesn't read as you propose. Again, it is not my proposal. I have never proposed anything, except that a call once made may not be changed. But I believe that it is an intepretation of the regulations that is at least consistent with the words themselves. > With 'apparent intent' we wanted > to distinguish between taking out a bidding to make a call (inadvertent, > thought about, out of turn etc. etc.) and to do something else: like looking > for the score of 3D redoubled vulnerable with 2 overtricks, or to rearrange > the cards, because Zia Mahmood used them in the previous round. It does say: > 'with the apparent intent to make a call' and not '..... to make that > call'. This is most helpful, though I think it may come as a surprise to many. > And it also says 'but law 25 may apply' and not 'but law 25B may > apply', which could be explained as both 25A and 25B apply. Indeed it does. If "Law 25 may apply" means "it is left to the Director to decide which part of Law 25 applies", then I would not quarrel with a Director who decided that it is in fact Law 25B that applies. > Since we are in a learning proces here, I stop arguing and ask you to give > your opinion about these arguments before continuing. I have tried to do so. > Yes, I understand. The reason not to react on this is that the discussion is > not directed to change laws at this moment, but to apply the laws as they > exist. I have some sympathy with this view, but I must say that I think it a legitimate part of the function of this group to say: "The Laws as they exist appear to us not to cover this situation, or to cover it in a way that will lead to confusion at best and inequity at worst; therefore, we believe that the Laws or the regulations should be amended as soon as possible." I agree with those who say: "Since there is no Law expressly designed to cover this case, we will have recourse to Law 21B". I do not agree with those who say: "Law 21B is of course the Law that applies to this case". > And the TD will say: you should read the whole sentence sir. It says with > the apparent intent to make a call. As I have said, this is a helpful and compelling argument for the fact that the player has actually passed. Indeed, I believe that he has actually passed - you and I have no disagreement here. It was, I think, DWS who said that the player had not passed because "if there was a review of the auction, it would not include the player's pass". The fact of the matter, though, appears to me to be that he has passed, then changed his call, so that although the rest of the auction will continue as though he had bid three clubs, he did at some point incontrovertibly pass. 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 Aug 9 10:32:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e790WlV06692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:32:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e790Wft06688 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:32:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.7.93.56] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13MJnO-0005OU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 01:32:34 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c00199$47ee5680$664c063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <040b01c000cd$33d274a0$866860cb@laptop> <004501c00106$a5426f80$150d073e@D457300> <016d01c00162$1cbf5d60$a03a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fielded Psych Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:32:19 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: > > It isn't the correct bid on the hand. If partner can be relied upon > > not to psyche, then he is marked with five spades (not because his 1S > > bid systemically showed them, but because if he has only four spades > > then the opponents have at least nine hearts, and we can be fairly > > sure from the rest of the auction that the opponents don't have nine > > hearts). > > This is a nice clue from the bidding you spotted, but > you seem to have missed its corollary: > if partner does indeed have 5 spades (and I think he > might have four good spades and four small hearts), > he will certainly bid 3 spades over 3D. Of course he will. But that does not make three diamonds the right bid, it just makes it a wrong bid that may not cost in the auction. If partner has four good spades and four small hearts, though, he won't bid three spades over three diamonds (because he will think that I have five - perhaps six - diamonds and three spades), and we will play in the wrong contract. Moreover, if by some chance West has a shape like 3-5-1-4 and has chosen to double instead of making the more modern "expert" call of one heart, I certainly do not want to give him the chance to bid three hearts over three diamonds. > In case partner would be on lead, > we want a D lead, not a spade lead. > In case RHO will be declarer, we want partner > to switch to a D. Partner won't be on lead against clubs. If he ends up on lead, it will be against hearts, and that will be because I have made a silly 3D bid in order to allow my opponents a belated shot at their heart fit. I don't know how you propose to defend four clubs, but I am going to lead the king of hearts. Thereafter, I certainly do not want my partner switching to a diamond when he gains the lead! Still, this is BLML, not r.g.b. The question as posed was: "Is 3D evidence of a CPU?", not "Is 3D the right bid?" My answer to both of these questions is "No" - I merely point out that although 3D is not the right bid, it is not so egregious an error that it would lead to suspicion of a CPU. 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 Aug 9 11:11:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e791BDt06726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:11:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e791B5t06722 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:11:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14288 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003201c00182$89a5e1e0$915608c3@dodona> References: <006c01c00171$ab93db60$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> <003201c00182$89a5e1e0$915608c3@dodona> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:05:43 -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 "Grattan Endicott" writes: >You cannot make the call, spend >some time thinking about a different call, and >then claim you had been thinking only about >the call you want to change. Wait a minute. I look at my hand. I decide I'm gonna bid 1H. Now, while thinking about partner's possible responses, and what I'm gonna bid next, I reach for the 1H bid card and put it on the table. As I glance down s second later (still thinking about my next bid) I realize to my horror that I've put down 1S. Immediately I cry "Wait! I've put down the wrong card!" Are you going to rule that I can't change my call under L25A because I wasn't thinking about *1H*? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOZCvjr2UW3au93vOEQKtkQCfUw+7f/4e6oSXGDs+9ydCQ1weuhEAn3qL Qp5bq/8Po6p49VqYYs1nVoDW =9c4c -----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 Aug 9 11:57:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e791urb06760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:56:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e791ukt06755 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:56:47 +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 13ML6b-000GUl-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:56:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:34:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300>, David Burn writes snip >I hope so. It's got to be sorted out somehow. "A call once made may >not be changed", anyone? > I'm 100% with this. It'll probably stop me looking at Wendy when I'm making a skip bid. 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 Wed Aug 9 11:57:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e791ux706764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:56:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e791unt06757 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:56:50 +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 13ML6c-000GUo-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:56:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:54:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <398F0322.C7FB37B3@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 In article <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >253 people read this (I hope) but only two people produced >an answer, and both got it wrong. > >Look at it again as a problem hand : > >Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >> Q 9 8 6 4 >> J 4 3 >> Q 9 8 >> A K >> >> K 3 2 >> K Q 10 9 7 6 2 >> K 10 >> J >> pitch the DK on the CK, a S on the DQ, ruff a D and lead the HQ. I don't see how I can avoid going down if S are 4-1 and the second round gets ruffed, but I might give LHO a really bad time with this manoeuvre. *** and do it all in tempo *** > >contract 4 hearts, lead diamond for the Ace, and a club >switch. >> >> Your turn. >> > -- 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 Wed Aug 9 12:29:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e792Stu06797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:28:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e792Smt06793 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:28:48 +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 13MLbm-0005Kp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:28:42 +0000 Message-ID: <9+$qrlAMFMk5EwZG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 03:26:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <002d01c00167$a33395a0$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> <001901c00196$71f6dd60$664c063e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001901c00196$71f6dd60$664c063e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001901c00196$71f6dd60$664c063e@D457300>, David Burn writes snip long helpful and accurate resume of what has been said. > >> And the TD will say: you should read the whole sentence sir. It says >with >> the apparent intent to make a call. > >As I have said, this is a helpful and compelling argument for the fact >that the player has actually passed. Indeed, I believe that he has >actually passed - you and I have no disagreement here. It was, I >think, DWS who said that the player had not passed because "if there >was a review of the auction, it would not include the player's pass". >The fact of the matter, though, appears to me to be that he has >passed, then changed his call, so that although the rest of the >auction will continue as though he had bid three clubs, he did at some >point incontrovertibly pass. I think we have to assume that the player *has* passed. All the evidence (with the exception of the mind of the player who made the call) points to this. > As the Law currently stands far greater inequity arises if we assume he hasn't passed. We have a man who, when he finally looks down, discovers that he has passed when he hadn't intended to, and he never (in his own mind, apparently or otherwise) intended to pass. 25A seems to allow him to change this call until his partner calls, otherwise we would not have a 25A to allow such stupidity. In other words why do we have such a Law if we can't apply it in this case? So we apply it. Now we have to deal with the 2NT call. Why did this happen? Well the opener has mislead his LHO (unintentionally, to be sure). Poor old LHO what can he say/do/think? "If I'd known that the pass card on the table was in fact an icon for the STOP card, I wouldn't have called" he'll say. "I've been mislead" he'll say. He might even say "I was misinformed" HUZZAH. Law 21B. Anyone for "A sufficient bid, pass or legal (re)double once made cannot be changed" ? All these terms (except pass) are well defined btw where is the Law that allows a player to pass? (let alone how it is denominated) cheers john >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/ -- 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 Wed Aug 9 16:59:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e796vZL06990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:57:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e796vTt06986 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:57:30 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:52:09 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:52:04 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > Sent: 09. August 2000 3:47 > To: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com writes: > > >If it > >takes that long that LHO is able to make a call using bidding > >boxes that I simply can't think of opener changing his call > >"inadvertantly, without a pause for thought". So we are in > >the L25B territory. And L25B applies "Until LHO calls". So > >this is a BOOT. > > This goes to David's point about when "without pause for thought" > starts. It seems counterproductive (not to mention irrational :) to > me to assume that clock starts _before_ the player has realized what > he's done. And how, you tell me, are you going to determine when the player has realized what he has done? According to this line of reasoning if a player makes a bid, his LHO goes into a 5 minute tank then opener still can change his call under L25A if only he manages to convince the TD the only after 5 minutes after he made a bid he realized what he had done. But after he realized that he changed his bid _without a pause for thought_. Oh, come on. L25 is already a very bad law cause it assumes that Directors (who are normally away from the table when an infraction occurs) are some sort of mind readers. Sometimes even all four players, even the most helpful and most honest, are not capable of agreeing whether a correction occurred with or without a pause for thought. If you want to apply it your way, that is by determining when exactly the player realized that he had made a wrong call then you can roll the dice deciding whether to apply L25A or L25B. Definitely the Laws should never be written by lawyers. It should be written by logicians. A good set of laws a) shouldn't contain laws that are contradictory or lead to contradictory consequences(i.e no L1 and L2 such that L1=>..=>P and L2=>...=>!P b) should be enforceable c) should be understandable by all to whom it may concern. Trivial remarks? Then why the Laws of bridge don't fulfill any of these requirements? Kornad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 17:44:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e797hn907041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:43:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e797hat07037 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:43:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA05040 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:43:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 09 09:44:29 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSRFNUKR6G0004AE@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:43:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:41:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:43:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , Grattan Endicott , ton kooijman Cc: bridge-laws , David Stevenson Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B672@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 > > > This is new information for sure. I don't think many in > this group were > > aware of this 1984-7 discussion. But is it helpful? We should try to > create > > an understanding about 25A that is applicable. It is the > most difficult > law > > to apply and TD's need good instructions. So it might be a > good idea to > > discuss it again in the LC. > > > +=+ I agree that the 1987 debate might not > really help, except in explaining to you why I > do not immediately jump into bed with all > those who think there is no pause for thought. > As we thought in 1987 there has been a > significant break, and turning to other things, > after the Pass became a call.+=+ > > > +=+ I am not without experience of bidding cards. > However, the law is not written to pay obeisance > to players' frailties - if he runs up against the law > he may gain sympathy if he does it inadvertently, > but this does not alter the law (whatever we > think it is). No matter how slow he is to realise > his mistake, there must be a cut-off at which > point he cannot claim there was no pause for > thought. We have different doubts, you and I, > as to where that point is. Suppose partner asks > some explanations of LHO's call and dealer says > 'but I haven't bid yet'? We are still not on the same level in this discussion. This can't happen with a claim on 25A. The player needs to have made up his mind about the call to be made but for some reason makes another call (a mechanical error, a mental abberation or I don't know why). So when he discovers the wrong call he probably will be rather surprised and knows exactly what to do: to put down the cards showing the call he wanted to make from the beginning. That in my opinion should be the meaning of 'without a pause for thought'. But who cares when he, noticing the wrong card, starts saying 'shit, what happened?' and then realises he took the wrong card out of the box. That creates thoughts, as humble as they may be. Is the 87 group saying that these thoughts make it impossible to change the call? If so, in my opinion 25A is meaningless already and with that conclusion many of you might be very happy. So your example shows that the player had not made up his mind about the call to be made. And then even I would say that 25A is not applicable. There still might be an inadvertent call made, but there is a pause for thought related to the call to be made. ton > I think there is some difficulty in arriving at > that later moment without pause for thought > from the time the Pass call was made +=+ > > > > and without > > >intervention of thoughts about other matters, such as a > > >Three Clubs bid. > > > +=+ I do appreciate that there is a difficulty in > grasping my point here; it is a little subtle and > not easy to express, But here goes again! The > call he wants to change is 'Pass'. We have to > decide whether that call ('Pass') was made - > we are saying 'yes', without prejudice - and > inadvertent - yes - and the change attempted > 'without pause for thought'. I think we can agree > that Three Clubs and Pass are different calls; > so when the player is thinking about 3C he is > not thinking about 'Pass'. He never thought about pass You want to time > the pause from the point of realisation of the > error even though delayed - we don't do that > with spoken bids do we? Why should we time that? - and I say it has to be > all one with making the call and immediacy in > correcting it. You cannot make the call, spend > some time thinking about a different call, and > then claim you had been thinking only about > the call you want to change. But nobody will claim that. This player might claim he was only thinking about the call he wanted to make from the beginning. > Or so it seems > to me. Not that it might not be better to > have a different law when using bidding boxes > and I suppose this could be achieved by Law > 80E regulation. +=+ > > To be honest, I sometimes really hope that > > somebody agrees, though I never > > ask for that either. > > > +=+ You sigh! But you know there is more to be > gained from researching a disagreement than > will ever be gained from docile acquiescence. > Just so long as we (both) stay adult about 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 17:52:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e797qF107053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:52:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e797q7t07049 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:52:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA00158 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:52:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 09 09:52:59 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSRFYE69280004AU@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:52:01 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:49:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:51:58 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B673@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 > Definitely the Laws should never be written by lawyers. > It should be written by logicians. A good set of laws > a) shouldn't contain laws that are contradictory or lead to > contradictory consequences(i.e no L1 and L2 such that L1=>..=>P > and L2=>...=>!P > b) should be enforceable > c) should be understandable by all to whom it may concern. > > > Trivial remarks? Then why the Laws of bridge don't fulfill > any of these requirements? > > Kornad Ciborowski Because the real world is too complicated for logicians. And what has logic to do with enforceable and understandable? 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 Aug 9 18:29:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e798SaM07088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:28:36 +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 e798SQt07080 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:28:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.76] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MRDj-0001pP-00; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:28:16 +0100 Message-ID: <006101c001db$c7261040$5f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200008082235.SAA10228@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:36:54 +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: Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A ----------------- \x/ ------------------, > but there is no law explicitly providing for the change. L21B is > pressed into service to allow the change. > > And here we are! > +=+ except, to repeat, that I do not believe we need that contrivance - just recognize that the procedure has not conformed to the bidding box requirements (regulations) and use the infraction to refer to Law 16C. And for those that have any doubts, just strengthen up the Law 80E regulations on use of bidding boxes. ~ 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 Aug 9 18:29:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e798Sag07089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:28:36 +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 e798SQt07081 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:28:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.76] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MRDp-0001pP-00; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:28:22 +0100 Message-ID: <006401c001db$cab68a00$5f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <002d01c00167$a33395a0$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> <001901c00196$71f6dd60$664c063e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:27:40 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A ___------------ \x/ -----------____ > > You ignore completely my remark and continue > > the line Grattan started drawing. > > ...I don't think that was what I was doing. > +=+ Let us make things easier. I can bite on David Burn's view of the position +=+ > > > > Please try to remember that this is not my approach; it is my > paraphrase of a point made by Grattan. I agree with you, as I have > said in the extract I quoted from my earlier message and elsewhere, > that the player has made a call of "Pass", whether he wanted to make > it or not. The fact that this creates a lot of extra problems is not, > however, my fault. It is the fault of the people who decided that a > player should be allowed to change his call after his LHO has called. > *That* is what is creating the problem, and it is important to > recognise this fact and not to say: "Well, he is allowed to do it, so > there must be some way around the difficulty it creates." > > > These are arguments why it should not read like you propose. Now > I'll try to > > explain why it doesn't read as you propose. > > Again, it is not my proposal. I have never proposed anything, except > that a call once made may not be changed. But I believe that it is an > intepretation of the regulations that is at least consistent with the > words themselves. > > > With 'apparent intent' we wanted > > to distinguish between taking out a bidding to make a call > (inadvertent, > > thought about, out of turn etc. etc.) and to do something else: like > looking > > for the score of 3D redoubled vulnerable with 2 overtricks, or to > rearrange > > the cards, because Zia Mahmood used them in the previous round. It > does say: > > 'with the apparent intent to make a call' and not '..... to make > that > > call'. > +=+ If I had read in the regulations that there are the words "to make a call" after 'intent' I would have raised no doubts. Are they there? Or are we left to assume that the regulation means "with apparent intent to remove that card from the bidding box"? +=+ > > This is most helpful, though I think it may come as a surprise to > many. > > > And it also says 'but law 25 may apply' and not 'but law 25B may > > apply', which could be explained as both 25A and 25B apply. > > Indeed it does. If "Law 25 may apply" means "it is left to the > Director to decide which part of Law 25 applies", then I would not > quarrel with a Director who decided that it is in fact Law 25B that > applies. > ------------------- \x/ ------------------ > Yes, I understand. The reason not to react on this is that the > discussion is > > not directed to change laws at this moment, but to apply the laws as > they > > exist. > > I have some sympathy with this view, but I must say that I think it a > legitimate part of the function of this group to say: "The Laws as > they exist appear to us not to cover this situation, or to cover it in > a way that will lead to confusion at best and inequity at worst; > therefore, we believe that the Laws or the regulations should be > amended as soon as possible." I agree with those who say: "Since there > is no Law expressly designed to cover this case, we will have recourse > to Law 21B". I do not agree with those who say: "Law 21B is of course > the Law that applies to this case". > > > And the TD will say: you should read the whole sentence sir. It says > with > > the apparent intent to make a call. > +=+ Poor scholar of English that I am, I had assumed that a regulation that says ".... removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." makes a statement about the intent of removing from the box. So I could not see that the player had made a call if he removed it accidentally or inadvertently from the box and this was apparent. But OK, so we say he has made a call - at the moment when he put the green card on the table since at that moment it was not apparent he had not intended to remove that green card from the bidding box. . ~ 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 Aug 9 18:37:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e798bBk07108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:37:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e798b3t07104 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:37:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA06601 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:37:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 09 10:37:57 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSRHJ5BN940004DS@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:36:59 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:34:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:36:58 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B674@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 Let me start to express my great appreciation for this contribution. It is clear, more constructive than some of my writings and it leads to general conclusions. What can a man ask more? This is how I think our discussions should develop. My compliments (I shouldn't exaggerate this, because some might think it to be an extension of my normal ironic/cynical style. It isn't) ton (Two remarks below, I didn't cut anything. Worth to read twice) > Ton wrote: > > > >If, in order for a call to be made, the bidding cards corresponding > to > > >that call must be removed from the bidding box "with intent", then > I > > >believe Grattan is correct. > > > > Help, we seem to disagree about life itself almost. And since you > are a > > reasonable person, it has to be the laws and/or regulations. > > I am not sure that we disagree about life. My own view of it is a bit > like my view of using Law 21B in this situation. It's an awful thing > to do - but the alternative is probably worse. > > Moreover, I wasn't arguing that I myself believed the man had not > passed. As you know, my opinion is that when a man has taken a pass > card out of his box, he has passed, and he has no business doing > anything else until the next three players have called. He has not > "informed" his LHO that he has passed or that he wanted to pass; he > has just passed. But Grattan, with the bidding box regulations to > guide him, suggests that he might after all not have passed. I was > trying to explain that I think Grattan has a point when he challenges > the use of L25A in the first place, and to help others to understand > what that point was (since Grattan's language, though a model of > precision, is not as easy as it might be for non-English speakers to > understand at first reading). > > The question on the examination paper said, in effect: "assuming that > it's OK to use L25A, and assuming it's OK to use L21B, what is the > status of LHO's call"? Well, we could all have tried to answer that > question, and we would (probably) all have come up with the view that > it's AI to his side but UI to the opponents. But to some of us this > seemed a bit silly, so what some of us did was to challenge the > assumptions on which it was based. Grattan and others have addressed > the use of 25A; I and others have addressed the use of 21B. This, it > seems to me, is a valid way for a group like this to spend its time; > it may be, after all, that our difficulty with the status of LHO's > call leads us to the conclusion that perhaps it is not appropriate to > use 25A or 21B, because we are led to an untenable position. On the > other hand, it is not clear to me that we should spend much time > answering questions like: "Assuming that bananas are purple, what > colour are oranges?" > > > I have a proposal for this group to start with. Discussions like > this one > > get rather unorganized, partly because so many take part, partly > because of > > lack of discipline. You for example continue to phrase the > regulations > > regarding the use of bidding boxes repeating what Grattan said > already. But > > in the meantime I replied saying that ' with apparent intent' should > not be > > explained the way Grattan does. > > I said this: > > >And of course, the bidding box regulations do not > >use the phrase "with intent" - I have been using it above > deliberately > >in order to simplify Grattan's argument. The bidding box regulations > >use the phrase "with apparent intent". Now, I would venture to > suggest > >that if a man goes so far as to take a green card all the way out of > a > >box, and put it all the way onto a table, without indicating in any > >way that this is not what he means to do, then his apparent intent > >should be regarded as corresponding to his actions. > > This means, or at least I intended it to mean, that there should be a > distinction between "with intent" and "with apparent intent", and that > I believe (contrary to Grattan's suggestion) that according to the > bidding box regulation as written, the man had indeed made a call of > "pass". I am sorry if this was not clear, but... > > > You ignore completely my remark and continue > > the line Grattan started drawing. > > ...I don't think that was what I was doing. > > > You are too well educated to assume that > > you ignored my view because the other one was more helpful, but > discussions > > become difficult this way. > > No, no. Both views are helpful, even if in the end only one of them > can be the "right" one in terms of how the game is actually ruled. > > > My proposal is that when one reacts on a > > statement saying it is wrong, implicitly or explicitly, at least one > > argument is used to support that view. This is not only polite it > also makes > > the discussion more productive and tidy. > > Well, we have the following position (after Herman): > > (1) A player has taken the Pass card out of the bidding box. In his > own mind, he has not passed, but from the point of view of the rest of > the table, he has passed. Because of events following his action, it > has become necessary to determine one way or another what he has > actually done. > > (2) There is a regulation which it is possible to interpret as meaning > that he has not passed, because passing was not what he intended. If > one uses that interpretation, then he has not made a call of "Pass", I almost got through without any remark, which is remarkable for a man as I am. But here we disagree, and this is essential for your and my reasoning. He did not intend to make that call, but he made it and therewith it became an inadvertent call. If you want to say that he didn't make a call of 'Pass' I am willing to agree. But then he made some other call, which we, very clever, defined to be an inadvertent call. And look at 25A and then go to 21B: he may change that inadvertent call in another, the intended one. Why are you then saying that laws related to 'change of call' cannot operate? > so that the Law relating to his "change of call" cannot operate. > Unfortunately, this regulation leaves us unable to proceed, because > there are no Laws that (explicitly or implicitly) cover the situation. > It may be that the regulation should be reconsidered, or it may be > that the Law should be reconsidered. All that can be said at the > moment is that the two appear incompatible. > > (3) If the player has not passed, then he has not made any call, and > his LHO's opening bid is a call out of rotation. But this seems > inequitable, because his LHO had every reason to think that it was in > fact his turn to call. Therefore it is convenient for us to assume > that the player has in fact passed - however, this does not mean that > Grattan is wrong to challenge the assumption. > > (4) If the player has passed, then his LHO's call is in rotation. The > player now appears to be permitted to change his call of "Pass" to his > intended call. If he does that, then we have a difficult situation in > respect of the call made by his LHO (which, among other things, may > now be insufficient). It is convenient for us to assume that LHO's > call is "based on misinformation" - however, that does not mean that I > am wrong to challenge the assumption. > > > Let me repeat why I think that 'with apparent intent' should not be > read as > > cancelling the possibility to make an inadvertent call. In the > first place > > this seems in contradiction with the laws, where inadvertent calls > are > > possible. In the second place we can't handle this approach. > Somebody makes > > a call after which his LHO makes a call. Now he convinces the TD > that he > > didn't want to make this call. In your approach he then didn't make > that > > call. What to do with LHO's call then: out of turn? So we are > creating a lot > > of extra problems. I even can't use 21B anymore. > > Please try to remember that this is not my approach; it is my > paraphrase of a point made by Grattan. I agree with you, as I have > said in the extract I quoted from my earlier message and elsewhere, > that the player has made a call of "Pass", whether he wanted to make > it or not. The fact that this creates a lot of extra problems is not, > however, my fault. It is the fault of the people who decided that a > player should be allowed to change his call after his LHO has called. > *That* is what is creating the problem, and it is important to > recognise this fact and not to say: "Well, he is allowed to do it, so > there must be some way around the difficulty it creates." > > > These are arguments why it should not read like you propose. Now > I'll try to > > explain why it doesn't read as you propose. > > Again, it is not my proposal. I have never proposed anything, except > that a call once made may not be changed. But I believe that it is an > interpretation of the regulations that is at least consistent with the > words themselves. > > > With 'apparent intent' we wanted > > to distinguish between taking out a bidding to make a call > (inadvertent, > > thought about, out of turn etc. etc.) and to do something else: like > looking > > for the score of 3D redoubled vulnerable with 2 overtricks, or to > rearrange > > the cards, because Zia Mahmood used them in the previous round. It > does say: > > 'with the apparent intent to make a call' and not '..... to make > that > > call'. > > This is most helpful, though I think it may come as a surprise to > many. > > > And it also says 'but law 25 may apply' and not 'but law 25B may > > apply', which could be explained as both 25A and 25B apply. > > Indeed it does. If "Law 25 may apply" means "it is left to the > Director to decide which part of Law 25 applies", then I would not > quarrel with a Director who decided that it is in fact Law 25B that > applies. > > > Since we are in a learning process here, I stop arguing and ask you > to give > > your opinion about these arguments before continuing. > > I have tried to do so. > > > Yes, I understand. The reason not to react on this is that the > discussion is > > not directed to change laws at this moment, but to apply the laws as > they > > exist. > > I have some sympathy with this view, but I must say that I think it a > legitimate part of the function of this group to say: "The Laws as > they exist appear to us not to cover this situation, or to cover it in > a way that will lead to confusion at best and inequity at worst; > therefore, we believe that the Laws or the regulations should be > amended as soon as possible." I agree with those who say: "Since there > is no Law expressly designed to cover this case, we will have recourse > to Law 21B". I do not agree with those who say: "Law 21B is of course > the Law that applies to this case". We agree here, as I have tried to explain from the beginning. 21B was not written to cover this case, but pushing it a bit it helps us to solve this problem. I am sure that David S is willing to take back his 'of course' and I am not blaming him for it, since my statements are often much stronger, as Grattan made clear. > > > And the TD will say: you should read the whole sentence sir. It says > with > > the apparent intent to make a call. > > As I have said, this is a helpful and compelling argument for the fact > that the player has actually passed. Indeed, I believe that he has > actually passed - you and I have no disagreement here. It was, I > think, DWS who said that the player had not passed because "if there > was a review of the auction, it would not include the player's pass". > The fact of the matter, though, appears to me to be that he has > passed, then changed his call, so that although the rest of the > auction will continue as though he had bid three clubs, he did at some > point incontrovertibly pass. > > 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 Wed Aug 9 19:24:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799OW207149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:24:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (zmamail03.zma.compaq.com [161.114.64.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e799OOt07143 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:24:26 +1000 (EST) Received: by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix, from userid 12345) id 955B3429B; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 05:24:16 -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 42CC0427D for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 05:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by excreo-gh02.reo.cpqcorp.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:24:14 +0100 Message-ID: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC203964800@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> From: "Timmermans, Catelijne" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:23:51 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, a bit of a theoretical question my partner and I were wondering about: clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north about their discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference but we haven't discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two options on the table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do that. I didn't agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra information. the questions: - is north putting two options on the table and is he allowed to do so if he is. - is the situation different if north answers "we haven't discussed it but I take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard the leader say). incidentally, most people at this club do play suit preference discarding .... (we are one of the few exceptions). regards, Catelijne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 19:36:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799Zj707174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:35:45 +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 e799Zct07170 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id LAA25062 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:35:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 09 11:36:30 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSRJKR2R300004G5@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:35:33 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:33:07 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:35:30 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , David Burn , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B676@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 > +=+ Poor scholar of English that I am, I had assumed > that a regulation that says ".... removed from the > bidding box with apparent intent." makes a statement > about the intent of removing from the box. So I > could not see that the player had made a call if he > removed it accidentally or inadvertently from the > box and this was apparent. But OK, so we say he > has made a call - at the moment when he put the > green card on the table since at that moment > it was not apparent he had not intended to > remove that green card from the bidding box. > . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That is not what I said and may be you could have understood that. He made a call because he pulled the bidding cards out of the box with the apparent intent to make a call. This is terrible. I just thought to be almost in line with David B. and now I have to admit that I used the Dutch translation of the bidding box regulations and translated that back in English. And only when both translations are accurate, which is doubtful by experience, my statements are true. But still, David, if the regulation is written as I thought it was, we almost agree. This remains a comfort for me. 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 Wed Aug 9 19:46:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799jr907192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:45:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e799jjt07188 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:45:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04841 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:45:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39902A8D.15FE48F3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:43:09 +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: [BLML] L25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Ton wrote: > > > It appears to me that you wish to rule that > > > the action of the player in pulling out the wrong card > > > and placing it on the table constituted the making of > > > a call. > > > > Nobody can rule else, since 'pass' is a call by definition. > > So it is. But I think what Grattan is trying to say is that whereas a > player who passes does so by taking out a pass card, thus "making the > call" of "pass", the converse is not true. That is, a player who > merely takes out a pass card has not necessarily passed, since he did > not take out the pass card *with intent*. Your view and DWS's is that > the player *has* passed, but has "misinformed" his opponents because > passing was not what he wanted to do. After he has passed, he changes > his call to 3C, and you apply L25A to allow a change of call. But > Grattan thinks - and I must say, his interpretation of the bidding box > regulations appears to me to be in accordance with the words they > use - that the player has *not* passed, so there is no call to be > changed. > This is a very real problem. But I don't believe that the bidding box regulations intend to say that a call is only made if the player intended to make it. Because in that case, no recourse to L25A is ever necessary. I believe the words "with (apparent) intent" are meant to distinguish between someone who takes out the bidding cards to put them back in order and someone who takes out a bidding card. The BBRegs are there to make clear WHEN a player has made a call. It is when he takes them out of the BB. It is not possible to take out the cards up to 3NT and then put them back and pass. That is a change of call, because the first call has been made. But it is possible to take out the cards up to 3NT and then put back the top one, and thus bid 3Sp. While that is also a change of call, it is one under L25A, and is therefor allowed. > If, in order for a call to be made, the bidding cards corresponding to > that call must be removed from the bidding box "with intent", then I > believe Grattan is correct. The player has not made the call of > "pass". The question is, of course: what has he done? As far as the > rest of the table is concerned, he has passed - they don't know what > his intent was until he reveals it at a later time. But according to > him - and according to the regulations - he has not passed, since he > did not mean to pass. This, it seems to me, is another case of > Schrodinger's Cat - the player can be regarded as existing in a > superposition of states, until some measurement of his intent is > taken. > That cannot be the right interpretation, as David explains quite well below. > Of course, we can't have bridge played like that. If every time my RHO > passes, I have to ask him whether he meant to pass before I can make > ny call, the game will be even slower than it would be if people > claimed properly. And of course, the bidding box regulations do not > use the phrase "with intent" - I have been using it above deliberately > in order to simplify Grattan's argument. The bidding box regulations > use the phrase "with apparent intent". Now, I would venture to suggest > that if a man goes so far as to take a green card all the way out of a > box, and put it all the way onto a table, without indicating in any > way that this is not what he means to do, then his apparent intent > should be regarded as corresponding to his actions. I would, if pushed > by the rabbit lobby, allow this degree of leeway: that if *before* his > LHO calls, he gives some indication that he has acted inadvertently, > he be allowed to change his call - but not afterwards. > Well, the WBF have allowed the change until after LHO has called, but not after partner. -- 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 Aug 9 19:46:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799kFD07212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e799k0t07199 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:46:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04879 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:45:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39902C70.86BDAF81@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:51:12 +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] A bit off-topic References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> <004101c00130$959b1300$d4ae01d5@D457300> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > At the table, I would win the club in dummy and play a low heart to > the king. What I would do next depends on what happens to that trick, > but I confess that I find it difficult to envisage a distribution on > which I will go down unless the defence can get a ruff, about which > there is little I can do. > > David Burn > London, England > Thank you, David, for sticking your neck out. Now I can sleep again, knowing that the great DB also went down in that contract that I so obviously should have made. Both red aces are singleton and there is a diamond ruff. And yes you can counter this, by throwing the king of diamonds on the king of clubs. Obvious of course ! the full deal : Q 9 8 6 4 J 4 3 Q 9 8 A K J 5 A 10 7 A 8 5 J 7 6 5 4 3 2 A Q 7 3 10 9 8 6 5 4 2 K 3 2 K Q 10 9 7 6 2 K 10 J BTW, there was no ruling, except one that I now won't have to deal with, since the play is really not as obvious as someone in our club seems to think. -- 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 Aug 9 19:46:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799k8007208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:46:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e799jut07195 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04898 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:45:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39902D16.EEF902DB@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:53:58 +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: [BLML] A bit off-topic References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66C@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: > > > You forgot to tell that west opened the bidding with 'pass 3 diamonds' > showing a very weak preempt. Now South being afraid of a ruff, discards his > diamond K and claims 10 tricks. Everybody agrees and Wendy prevents the > discovery of this crime at the beer drinking stage of the event. > > Don't tell me this is not the right answer. > > ton > Perfect answer ! Both defenders have a seven card suit and yet neither has opened. And those two are the weakest openers in the club. They explain everything "can be weak". I told them they should change that to "can be strong". -- 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 Aug 9 19:46:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799kEk07211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:46:14 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e799jwt07197 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:45:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.200]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04914 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:45:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39902DE6.867BE288@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:57:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Law 25 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: > > > Hasn't David Burn hit the nail on the head? > > The action of putting a pass card on the table is a part of the actions > needed to make a call at that turn. It does not of itself constitute a call. Answered in some other thread as well, but here I'd like to ask : So now LHO's call will be treated as a COOR ? Surely that is not the 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 Wed Aug 9 19:53:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e799rau07243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:53:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e799rUt07239 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:46:38 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:44:45 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl] > Sent: 09. August 2000 10:52 > To: 'Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > > Definitely the Laws should never be written by lawyers. > > It should be written by logicians. A good set of laws > > a) shouldn't contain laws that are contradictory or lead to > > contradictory consequences(i.e no L1 and L2 such that L1=>..=>P > > and L2=>...=>!P > > b) should be enforceable > > c) should be understandable by all to whom it may concern. > > > > > > Trivial remarks? Then why the Laws of bridge don't fulfill > > any of these requirements? > > > > Kornad Ciborowski > > > Because the real world is too complicated for logicians. It is not. And > what has logic > to do with enforceable and understandable? I was not very precise - apologies for trying to put too much in one statement. This is my last contribution to this thread - David Burn will make my points on this subject better I do - it will be related very loosely to L25; so DWS can press the Delete key right now. First - point c). The more complicated the laws are the more the "consumers" of the law need lawyers. That's why the lawyers create (in their best interest) more complicated laws than they should. This is by means a "conspiracy theory" - this is a natural process that happens all the time in all parliaments all over the world. Sometimes they also create unenforceable - for they same reason (I might well ask you Ton the same question; you are one of the bridge lawmakers. L25 is partailly uneforceable; how the TD who is not even wathing the play is supposed to know whether the a change of call was inadvertant or not? Why should he ever face this task?). The legislators have to create laws - otherwise why we would need them? Getting back to bridge. Bridge is not a as complicated as the real world. It is fairly easy to codify. True, not everything can be covered by a simple "rule of thumb" (e.g. a law saying that "a revoke always costs 1 trick" would lead sometimes to situations where committing a revoke intentionally would be beneficial to the revoker) but what can be should not be unnecessary complicated. L25 is a the most classical example albeit not the only one. Look - thanks to the existence of such a complicated and ambiguous sets of rules many people have got work to do; the books contaning comments to the Bridge Law contain hundreds of pages; we have a bunch of WBF/Zonal/NCBOs guidelines, Code of Practice, "stupid mistake" corollary etc. and... BLML! There are a lot more chess discussion groups than bridge discussion groups but no Chess Law Mailing List. Why? Because a "move once made cannot be taken back". The whole discussion reminds me what communism was doing over the years: solving problems that would have never arisen without communism. And communism was quite good at it. So are the participants of this discussion; there is so much sophisticated knowledge involved in it; so much tremendous intellectual effort was put and clever ways were devised on this list to solve problems that magically disappear when you remove a Law that only exists in bridge; anywhere else in the world it says "you cannot take back your move" - and is a fundamental rule of all games. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 20:16:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79AFkH07274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:15:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79AFct07269 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:15:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA07583 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:15:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:15 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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: <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> For those who wish to limit the applicability of L25a. Suppose we combine David Bs, eminently sensible, "Call made cannot be changed" (except BOOTs/Insufficient/Bids based on MI - one assumes) with "a call is made once the bidding card clears the lip of the box." It is my view that the brunt of such legislation would fall upon a) Novices/occasional duplicate players b) The infirm of vision/movement Please consider which of these populations you are trying (OK prepared) to drive out of the game before making such changes. However, a regulation like "In using the bidding box you should select the bid you wish to make, remove it from the bidding box and check the face. If, at this stage you realise the card is not the one you intend to play you should make the table aware of the problem and take the time you need to correct it. Otherwise place the card neatly on the table in front of you and release it. Once you have released the card Law25 will no longer apply and the call may not be changed." would be reasonably easy for everyone. Note1: If a "stop" card is placed as above the placer must make a jump bid. Note2: This would allow "change of intent" at a slightly later stage than at present. UI laws would apply. To go back to David's original question we obviously lack a good law to justify the sensible approach. How about. 1. (to opener) I consider your carelessness an infraction against 74b1 (insufficient attention) 2. I will be ruling under L84E (discretionary penalty) at the end of the hand (explain law). However, if the NOS treat the call as AI and the OS treat the call as UI it is unlikely that I will consider the NOS damaged. Close enough? 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 Wed Aug 9 20:37:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79AaTf07294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:36:29 +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 e79AaLt07290 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:36:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id MAA26416 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:36:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 09 12:37:14 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSRLP1QNYO0004IJ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:36:16 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:33:51 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:36:16 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B678@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: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > [mailto:Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 9 augustus 2000 11:45 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl] > > Sent: 09. August 2000 10:52 > > To: 'Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > > > > > Definitely the Laws should never be written by lawyers. > > > It should be written by logicians. A good set of laws > > > a) shouldn't contain laws that are contradictory or lead to > > > contradictory consequences(i.e no L1 and L2 such that L1=>..=>P > > > and L2=>...=>!P > > > b) should be enforceable > > > c) should be understandable by all to whom it may concern. > > > > > > > > > Trivial remarks? Then why the Laws of bridge don't fulfill > > > any of these requirements? > > > > > > Kornad Ciborowski > > > > > > Because the real world is too complicated for logicians. > > It is not. > > > And > > what has logic > > to do with enforceable and understandable? > > I was not very precise - apologies for trying to put > too much in one statement. > This is my last contribution to this thread - David Burn > will make my points on this subject better I do - it will > be related very loosely to L25; so DWS can press the Delete > key right now. You are not frustrated are you? > First - point c). The more complicated the laws are the > more the "consumers" of the law need lawyers. That's why the > lawyers create (in their best interest) more complicated laws > than they should. This is by means a "conspiracy theory" - this > is a natural process that happens all the time in all parliaments > all over the world. Sometimes they also create unenforceable > - for they same reason (I might well ask you Ton the same > question; you are one of the bridge lawmakers. L25 is partailly > uneforceable; how the TD who > is not even wathing the play is supposed to know whether the > a change of call was inadvertant or not? Why should he ever > face this task?) Real life is complicated, as I said. But my experience with law 25A is that TD's manage reasonably well applying it. No more mistakes than with the revoke law or the peanlty card. I have to confess to you that I am not particularly fond of lawyers and did express this lack of admiration quite often. . The legislators have to create laws - > otherwise why we would need them? > Getting back to bridge. Bridge is not a as complicated > as the real world. It is fairly easy to codify. True, not > everything can be covered by a simple "rule of thumb" > (e.g. a law saying that "a revoke always costs 1 trick" would > lead sometimes to situations where committing a revoke intentionally > would be beneficial to the revoker) but what can be should not be > unnecessary complicated. L25 is a the most classical example > albeit not the only one. Look - thanks to the existence of > such a complicated and ambiguous sets of rules many people have > got work to do; the books contaning comments to the Bridge Law > contain hundreds of pages; we have a bunch of WBF/Zonal/NCBOs > guidelines, Code of Practice, "stupid mistake" corollary etc. > and... BLML! There are a lot > more chess discussion groups than bridge discussion groups > but no Chess Law Mailing List. Why? Because a "move once made > cannot be taken back". BLML does not exist as a result of L25. I don't consider this comparison with other sports as useful. No other sport uses a pass card either (this might be a wrong statement, but still the intention is clear) > The whole discussion reminds me what communism was doing > over the years: solving problems that would have never arisen > without communism. I am not a logician myself, but I easily can be convinced that indeed bridgeproblems would never have existed without bridge itself. And communism was quite good at it. So > are the participants of this discussion; there is so > much sophisticated knowledge involved in it; so much tremendous > intellectual effort was put and clever ways were devised on > this list to solve problems that magically disappear when > you remove a Law that only exists in bridge; anywhere else > in the world it says "you cannot take back your move" - > and is a fundamental rule of all games. 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 Aug 9 21:07:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79B7Lq07324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:07:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79B7Et07320 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:07:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:55:37 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:55:15 +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 Timmermans, Catelijne wrote: >Hi all, > >a bit of a theoretical question my partner and I were wondering about: > >clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. > >A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north about their >discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference but we haven't >discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two options on the >table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do that. I didn't >agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra >information. > >the questions: > >- is north putting two options on the table and is he allowed to do so if he >is. >- is the situation different if north answers "we haven't discussed it but I >take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard the leader say). > >incidentally, most people at this club do play suit preference discarding >.... (we are one of the few exceptions). > >regards, > >Catelijne Saying that you have no agreements on a discard is a valid answer. Never say how you take something. Players should disclose any agreements they have, if any, but never any conclusions they draw. So in this case, North should have answered, "We have not discussed it." Period. It is very nice that North volunteers extra information, but declarer has no right on that information, unless it was really NS's agreement. Looking forward to see you again on StepBridge ;-) -- 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 Aug 9 21:42:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79BfbR07362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:41:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79BfTt07357 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:41:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from p41s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.66] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MUBU-00031z-00; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:38:08 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01c001f6$58902c40$425993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B676@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:32:51 +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: 'Grattan Endicott' ; David Burn ; bridge-laws Sent: 09 August 2000 10:35 Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > This is terrible. I just thought to be almost in line with David B. and now > I have to admit that I used the Dutch translation of the bidding box > regulations and translated that back in English. And only when both > translations are accurate, which is doubtful by experience, my statements > are true. > But still, David, if the regulation is written as I thought it was, we > almost agree. This remains a comfort for me. > +=+ Nothing terrible about it, ton - I frequently think I have the Dutch laws in front of me :-))) Mais, a nos moutons - I think we have worked a way through to an approximate agreement, at least that we have a way to say the Pass is established as a call made. I do not want to refer to Law 21 here because I doubt that the Law says we can. My route is direct to Law 16C on the basis that there has been an infraction - a breach of the bidding box regulations, perhaps, in attempting to designate a Stop with a Pass card. The only other product of these brief exchanges for me has been the evidence that the Laws are not written with bidding boxes in mind and the regulations for using bidding boxes have not made any adjustments for this. What to do about the inconvenience is something we could perhaps discuss. [By the way, I think we can discount the suggestion from one quarter that we would make a law or regulation that was unfair to persons with the palsy.] ~ 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 Aug 9 21:42:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79BfVr07358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:41:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79BfOt07353 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.155.140] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13MUEa-0002y5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:41:20 +0100 Message-ID: <005901c001f6$b47dcda0$b210073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> <004101c00130$959b1300$d4ae01d5@D457300> <39902C70.86BDAF81@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:38:21 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > At the table, I would win the club in dummy and play a low heart to > > the king. What I would do next depends on what happens to that trick, > > but I confess that I find it difficult to envisage a distribution on > > which I will go down unless the defence can get a ruff, about which > > there is little I can do. > Thank you, David, for sticking your neck out. > > Now I can sleep again, knowing that the great DB also went > down in that contract that I so obviously should have made. No, I didn't. The second message I sent, in which I discarded the king of diamonds on the king of clubs, was clearly sent without pause for thought after the first one. It should therefore be allowed under Law 45C4B. But if this is not permitted, then I claim the right under Law 25 to change my call of 4H to 3NT. After all, it is surely obvious when I played a heart and not a club to trick three that I was under the impression that I had not bid four hearts. Therefore, according to certain eminent authorities, I hadn't. > Both red aces are singleton and there is a diamond ruff. > > And yes you can counter this, by throwing the king of > diamonds on the king of clubs. > > Obvious of course ! > > the full deal : > > Q 9 8 6 4 > J 4 3 > Q 9 8 > A K > J 5 A 10 7 > A 8 5 > J 7 6 5 4 3 2 A > Q 7 3 10 9 8 6 5 4 2 > K 3 2 > K Q 10 9 7 6 2 > K 10 > J -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 22:02:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79C2fb07443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:02:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79C2Ut07432 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:02:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08534 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:02:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39913380.2868113B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:33:36 +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] question on question and answer about discarding References: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC203964800@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Timmermans, Catelijne" wrote: > > Hi all, > > a bit of a theoretical question my partner and I were wondering about: > > clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. > > A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north about their > discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference but we haven't > discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two options on the > table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do that. I didn't > agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra > information. > > the questions: > > - is north putting two options on the table and is he allowed to do so if he > is. > - is the situation different if north answers "we haven't discussed it but I > take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard the leader say). > It is my opinion, and that of the De Wael school, that it does not matter if you say : - A - A, but we have not discussed it - we have not discussed it, but I'm taking it as A - I think it is A - it should be A, but it could also be B - A or B, and when pressed : A - B, no A, no B, no A, yes A or anything. The explanation in all these cases is "A". If it turns out to be B (or C) there has been misinformation. If it turns out to be B, the ones who have stated this are not to be ruled better than the ones who have not. If it turns out to be C, the ones who have stated B are not to be ruled worse than the ones who have said nothing but A. That is my personal opinion though, David S has a voiced opinion which is different. He believes (if I may be so bold as to tell them what I think you believe, David) is that it is wrong for a player to say "A" when in fact the true answer is "we have not discussed this, but the logical system for us would be A". I don't know what he would rule if this player did in fact say A, which cannot be construed a misinformation, even when it is technically a lie. -- 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 Aug 9 22:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79C2fX07442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:02:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79C2St07430 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:02:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08521 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:02:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39913003.2D58E389@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:18:43 +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: [BLML] L25A 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: > > > As a matter of consistency, why is it that when a card is exposed on > the table with intent it is considered played even if it were not the > intended card? You're allowed a slip of the tongue in calling cards from > dummy, but not a slip of the hand in drawing cards. But you're allowed both > in terms of bidding. > Well for one thing, the played card carries the information that this card is in the hand. So it becomes a penalty card. That explanation does not work for declarer of course, but it is only a partial explanation, of course. Another explanation is that playing cards are old and well known. They have been manufactured for centuries, have standard dimensions and texture, and children learn to play with them at a young age. Dexterity with cards is a skill that people are supposed to have. OTOH, bidding boxes are new, non-standard, of less quality paper, less frequently changed, and only in use for bridge tournaments. BB-skills are non-essential. Quite probably the different dealing by the Laws is derived from this difference. > >What happens > >if he realises his mistake not immediately? You agreed earlier that the > >laws > >allow to apply 25A till a later moment. > > Is the method of how he realizes his mistake at all important? > I don't believe it 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 Wed Aug 9 22:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79C2YR07435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:02:34 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79C2Qt07428 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:02:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08517 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:02:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39912ED5.4DDD7383@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:13:41 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <006c01c00171$ab93db60$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> <003201c00182$89a5e1e0$915608c3@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 am not without experience of bidding cards. > However, the law is not written to pay obeisance > to players' frailties - if he runs up against the law > he may gain sympathy if he does it inadvertently, > but this does not alter the law (whatever we > think it is). No matter how slow he is to realise > his mistake, there must be a cut-off at which > point he cannot claim there was no pause for > thought. We have different doubts, you and I, > as to where that point is. Suppose partner asks > some explanations of LHO's call and dealer says > 'but I haven't bid yet'? > I think there is some difficulty in arriving at > that later moment without pause for thought > from the time the Pass call was made +=+ > > >From last week. S : puts down 2Sp N : alert W : hm ? N : (I don't remember what she said) S : what do you mean ? Ahh : that's not what I wanted to bid ! so we allowed the change. There were probably several tens of seconds between the bid and the realisation, but the outcry was "immediate". Are you saying, Grattan, that L25A does not apply to this case ? -- 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 Aug 9 22:55:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79CtSv07503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:55:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79CtHt07499 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:55:18 +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 13MVNz-000Nkt-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 04:14:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] re: Encrypted signalling. Brown sticker conventions References: <3.0.3.32.20000809022527.007c52a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000809022527.007c52a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Patrick wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > > The people who decide what systems players are allowed to play in >their events, whether the Auckland BC, the ACBL or the WBF are not the >WBFLC. > > Such people may regulate conventions however they like, but may not >regulate natural bids. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > So if I read you right here David you are saying that you may >not regulate against a natural one level opener just because it >doesn't meet some arbitrary rule of 18. > > Does it also mean that you can't restrict the use of or the >conventions used in response to a 1NT opener that systmeically >shows a balanced 8-10 points? I made a general comment which seemed right in the circumstances of the article and as a reply to the earlier article. It was not meant to be a full detailed statement of what can and cannot be regulated. I presumed people would know it so I did not bother to go through it in detail. The point of my remarks was not the detail of what may or may not be but to see if I understood where we were going with this discussion. I was not aware that the discussion was over the detail of what may be regulated. It is permissible to regulate conventions under L40D. It is permissible to regulate initial actions on less than 7 HCP [from memory] under L40?. The right to regulate conventions under L40D is wide-ranging, and the WBF has accepted that this includes regulating conventions after natural bids in such a way that it becomes very difficult to play such bids. -- 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 Aug 9 23:02:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79D2Wt07523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:02:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79D2Mt07519 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:02:23 +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 e79D2gP65319 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:02:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000809085846.00b47930@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:04:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted signalling - Brown Sticker Conventions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:15 PM 8/8/00, Todd wrote: I find it hard to demonstrate this without going to the absurd. In pinochle there's a rule that you must play a higher card than what's on the table when the trick comes around to you if you can legally do so. It's fair, but far outside the nature of bridge. JFTR, that's not correct. The rule in pinochle is that if a trick has already been trumped, you must overtrump if you can legally do so. But you are always allowed to play low in the suit led. Has anyone in the discussion ever played "adjective bridge"? It is just like bridge, except that a player making a call may add any one word of their choice. It is, of course, entirely fair, and, equally of course, totally foreign to the intrinsic nature of the real game. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 9 23:29:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79DSmI07545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:28:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79DSdt07541 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 23:28:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:28:22 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:24:12 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: 09. August 2000 13:34 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding > > > "Timmermans, Catelijne" wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > a bit of a theoretical question my partner and I were > wondering about: > > > > clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. > > > > A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north > about their > > discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference > but we haven't > > discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two > options on the > > table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do > that. I didn't > > agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra > > information. > > > > the questions: > > > > - is north putting two options on the table and is he > allowed to do so if he > > is. > > - is the situation different if north answers "we haven't > discussed it but I > > take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard > the leader say). > > > > It is my opinion, and that of the De Wael school, that it > does not matter if you say : > > - A > - A, but we have not discussed it > - we have not discussed it, but I'm taking it as A > - I think it is A > - it should be A, but it could also be B > - A or B, and when pressed : A > - B, no A, no B, no A, yes A > > or anything. > > The explanation in all these cases is "A". > > If it turns out to be B (or C) there has been > misinformation. > > If it turns out to be B, the ones who have stated this are > not to be ruled better than the ones who have not. > If it turns out to be C, the ones who have stated B are not > to be ruled worse than the ones who have said nothing but A. > > That is my personal opinion though, David S has a voiced > opinion which is different. He believes (if I may be so > bold as to tell them what I think you believe, David) is > that it is wrong for a player to say "A" when in fact the > true answer is "we have not discussed this, but the logical > system for us would be A". > > I don't know what he would rule if this player did in fact > say A, which cannot be construed a misinformation, even when > it is technically a lie. I am generally the follower of the de Wael school. "Generally" in this case means always when I play on screens. Without them there is a slight problem I have with it. Suppose I have agreed with my partner that a 2NT response to a 1H/S opening is fit-showing failed to agree whether it is a GF raise or INV+ raise (an artificial case indeed but I hope clearly illustrating my point). When I'm dealt 15HCP, though, I don't have to know the exact agreement to bid 2NT. Partner, the follower of dWs alerts and when asked he says that 2NT is GF. I'm 100% sure that he is not sure either and just "took his best guest accepting a misinformation ruling if he guesses wrong". If I had an invitational hand indeed then the opponents would claim MI and our side would have to accept this ruling. Tough luck, this is what I'm prepared for playing dWs. But I hold a GF hand indeed. Now if partner rebids 4S I know (due to his explanation) that he holds a bare minimum. But this knowledge is based on UI so I have to "bend over backwards" and make a slam try with a strong hand. On the other hand if his explanation is "2NT=INV or better" than I have to refrain from making a slam try for the same reason. Heads they win, tails I lose. Given that I'd very much prefer that partner would not be a member of de Wael school and explained instead: "2NT might be GF or at least invitational - I don't know for sure". That wouldn't deprive me of a legal chance to guess what he thinks the 2NT response really shows. When screens are in use, however, this problem doesn't exist. I simply offer an explanation and hope the sad guy on the other side of the screen will offer the same. I he doesn't - too bad for us. If he does - the opponents are not entitled to know that I was in doubt. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 00:13:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79ECV407604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:12:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79ECOt07600 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:12:25 +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 e79ECsm30892 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:12:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000809093756.00b4adb0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:14:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:54 PM 8/8/00, Grattan wrote: >+=+ It is widely accepted that Law 25 is a monster. > It is time we killed it but the WBFLC has said > it must live until 2005. We could possibly Perhaps it's time to engage that discussion (David B. has already started it with his suggestion of "A call once made may not be changed"). How about: "(a) A player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertant call only if he indicates immediately, without pause, that his original call was inadvertant. If legal, his last call stands... "(b) Any indication that an original call was inadvertant which is given after a pause is to be treated as extraneous information (see L16A). "(c) If the conditions of (a) have been met, a call by LHO subsequent to the immediate indication of inadvertancy and prior to the making of the substitute call is to be treated as out of rotation (see L28-35)." It's not clear whether (b) and (c) belong in the body of the text, in a footnote, or simply in some kind of accompanying interpretive guidelines. But they express the intent of (a). This accomplishes the following: (1) "Immediately, without pause" instead of "without pause for thought" means we need not concern ourselves with the question of what was going on in the player's mind -- any delay, no correction permitted. (2) "Indicates... that his original call was inadvertant" is intended to afford the same protection to "One heart no... wait... I'm sorry... I didn't mean it... I meant to bid one spade" as to "One heart spade". (3) (c) is intended to reinforce the message that a sharp LHO cannot prevent the intended correction by getting in an out-of-tempo fast call between the "wait" and the "I'm sorry", and to potentially punish him if he tries to do so. (4) It specifically omits any allowance for "delayed or purposeful correction". I'm firmly in the L25B-is-an-abomination camp, and believe from what I've read here that most of BLML feels similarly. The main drawback is that it would not have protected the poor lady who, in a game I was directing a while back, tried to pull a card from her bid box, had a dozen or so bid cards come flying out on to the floor, immediately went under the table to gather up the mess, and then, as soon as she came up for air, noticed that the card that actually wound up on the table was not her intended call, despite the fact that everyone at the table agreed that the inadvertant nature of her call was obvious from the fact that she attempted to correct it the instant she noticed what it was. But I believe we should be willing to pay that particular price for the resulting simplicity and clarity of "immediately, without pause". It would mean that a "green stop card" is an established pass unless the correction is made as soon as it hits the table. Putting out a pass then putting out the 3C card would be covered by (b). 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 00:18:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79EICP07628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:18:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79EI5t07624 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from Aspire.eiu.edu (eiuts103.eiu.edu [139.67.16.103]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA22381; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:23:46 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000809092001.007a5180@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:20:01 -0500 To: "Timmermans, Catelijne" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding In-Reply-To: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC203964800@excdub-02.ied.cpq corp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:23 AM 8/9/00 +0100, Timmermans, Catelijne wrote: >Hi all, > >a bit of a theoretical question my partner and I were wondering about: > >clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. > >A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north about their >discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference but we haven't >discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two options on the >table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do that. I didn't >agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra >information. > >the questions: > >- is north putting two options on the table and is he allowed to do so if he >is. No, he isn't. "Haven't discussed it" is not an option, it is a statement of clarification. [BTW, I think one is allowed to present two options anyway. As a member of the 'full and truthful disclosure school', rather than the DeWael school, I think one should give the truthful reply. If the truthful reply was, for example, "I can't remember if we agreed for it to be suit preference or discouraging in this situation", then that's what should be said. Obviously, such an answer might increase the chance of an unfavorable MI ruling, but so be it.] >- is the situation different if north answers "we haven't discussed it but I >take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard the leader say). I would slightly prefer this way of putting it, but I don't think it really makes much difference. >incidentally, most people at this club do play suit preference discarding >.... (we are one of the few exceptions). Note that partner could have simply said "We haven't discussed it" and stopped there. If opponents were visitors at the club, partner probably should have added "Most people here play this as suit preference." Note that in any case there are potential UI problems from those answers, which I think are unavoidable. The DeWael School does eliminate the UI problem, at the cost of being at least technically guilty of MI on almost every explanation. >regards, > >Catelijne And to you, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 00:22:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79EMOh07643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:22:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79EMIt07639 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 07:22:11 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [209.206.13.169] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" , "Kooijman, A." References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B672@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:23:34 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2000 14:22:11.0242 (UTC) FILETIME=[34F118A0:01C0020D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. ; Grattan Endicott ; ton kooijman Cc: bridge-laws ; David Stevenson Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 2:43 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A | > +=+ I agree that the 1987 debate might not | > really help, except in explaining to you why I | > do not immediately jump into bed with all | > those who think there is no pause for thought. | > As we thought in 1987 there has been a | > significant break, and turning to other things, | > after the Pass became a call.+=+ | > > | > +=+ I am not without experience of bidding cards. | > However, the law is not written to pay obeisance | > to players' frailties - if he runs up against the law | > he may gain sympathy if he does it inadvertently, | > but this does not alter the law (whatever we | > think it is). No matter how slow he is to realise | > his mistake, there must be a cut-off at which | > point he cannot claim there was no pause for | > thought. We have different doubts, you and I, | > as to where that point is. Suppose partner asks | > some explanations of LHO's call and dealer says | > 'but I haven't bid yet'? | | We are still not on the same level in this discussion. This can't happen | with a claim on 25A. | The player needs to have made up his mind about the call to be made but for | some reason makes another call (a mechanical error, a mental abberation or I | don't know why). So when he discovers the wrong call he probably will be | rather surprised and knows exactly what to do: to put down the cards showing | the call he wanted to make from the beginning. That in my opinion should be | the meaning of 'without a pause for thought'. I should think that the objective in composing law where there is no penalty for irregularity is that there is high probability that the outcome will not be visibly affected. But I believe that the view voiced here by Ton forces us to accept that it is likely, yea probable that a L25A correction creates a fork in the road that will influence the players, compared to had there been no miscue. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas | 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 Aug 10 00:37:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79Eb0V07661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:37:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79Eart07657 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA26027 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:36:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 09 16:37:46 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSRU48RNDG0004SX@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:36:49 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:34:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:36:47 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Roger Pewick'" , blml , "Kooijman, A." Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B67A@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: Roger Pewick [mailto:axman22@hotmail.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 9 augustus 2000 16:24 > Aan: blml; Kooijman, A. > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] L25A > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. > ; Grattan Endicott > ; ton > kooijman > Cc: bridge-laws ; David Stevenson > > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 2:43 AM > Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A > > > | > +=+ I agree that the 1987 debate might not > | > really help, except in explaining to you why I > | > do not immediately jump into bed with all > | > those who think there is no pause for thought. > | > As we thought in 1987 there has been a > | > significant break, and turning to other things, > | > after the Pass became a call.+=+ > | > > > | > +=+ I am not without experience of bidding cards. > | > However, the law is not written to pay obeisance > | > to players' frailties - if he runs up against the law > | > he may gain sympathy if he does it inadvertently, > | > but this does not alter the law (whatever we > | > think it is). No matter how slow he is to realise > | > his mistake, there must be a cut-off at which > | > point he cannot claim there was no pause for > | > thought. We have different doubts, you and I, > | > as to where that point is. Suppose partner asks > | > some explanations of LHO's call and dealer says > | > 'but I haven't bid yet'? > | > | We are still not on the same level in this discussion. This can't > happen > | with a claim on 25A. > | The player needs to have made up his mind about the call to be made > but for > | some reason makes another call (a mechanical error, a mental > abberation or I > | don't know why). So when he discovers the wrong call he > probably will > be > | rather surprised and knows exactly what to do: to put down the cards > showing > | the call he wanted to make from the beginning. That in my opinion > should be > | the meaning of 'without a pause for thought'. > > I should think that the objective in composing law where there is no > penalty for irregularity is that there is high probability that the > outcome will not be visibly affected. But I believe that the > view voiced > here by Ton forces us to accept that it is likely, yea probable that a > L25A correction creates a fork in the road that will influence the > players, compared to had there been no miscue. Before being able to answer I need to know more about the fork it creates. It shouldn't create anything because the erroneous call doesn't carry any useful information about the hand. ton > > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > > > | 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 Aug 10 00:54:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79Esbt07684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:54:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79EsUt07680 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:54:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19780 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006101c001db$c7261040$5f5408c3@dodona> References: <200008082235.SAA10228@cfa183.harvard.edu> <006101c001db$c7261040$5f5408c3@dodona> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:50:12 -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 "Grattan Endicott" writes: >just recognize that the procedure >has not conformed to the bidding >box requirements (regulations) >and use the infraction to refer to >Law 16C. You keep talking about Law 16C, but that law doesn't answer the question what to do about 2nd player's call which is on the table, after dealer withdraws his "pass". As far as I can see, the only law which may do so is 21B, and then only if the "pass" is considered misinformation. The fact that the procedure hasn't conformed to the bidding box regs is, it seems to me, a violation of Law 18F. It doesn't seem necessary to invoke Law 80E, but I don't suppose it hurts, either. 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/AwUBOZFwob2UW3au93vOEQKaewCfdkTBRVeAEb2XikA1OZt0KjkMMA4An0b8 SWeZuc4KJyUg5VzchRoxPkXD =Yllp -----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 Aug 10 00:59:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79ExJM07696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:59:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79ExCt07692 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:59:13 +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 e79ExYP72864 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:59:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000809105133.00b48ea0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:01:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding In-Reply-To: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC203964800@excdub-02.ied.cpq corp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:23 AM 8/9/00, Timmermans wrote: >clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. > >A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north about their >discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference but we haven't >discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two options on the >table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do that. I didn't >agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra >information. > >the questions: > >- is north putting two options on the table and is he allowed to do so if he >is. >- is the situation different if north answers "we haven't discussed it but I >take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard the leader say). > >incidentally, most people at this club do play suit preference discarding >.... (we are one of the few exceptions). In theory, it is improper to respond to a question about partner's call by revealing what you will "take it as". On the other hand, if you have knowledge that will lead you to take it as anything in particular, you are obligated to disclose that knowledge. So the ideal statement would be something along the lines of "we haven't discussed it, but from what I know of partner's tendencies I believe it to be most likely that he intended it as suit preference". You are not required to tell your opponents to what extent, if any, you will allow your uncertainty to affect your subsequent actions (it may not, of course, affect your partner's subsequent actions; he must continue on the assumption that you are treating it as whatever he originally intended it to be). But that's a fine theoretical distinction, and in real life "I take it as" is common enough that it seems a bit churlish to object to the mis-phrasing. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 01:02:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79F2Ek07713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:02:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79F26t07709 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:02:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from pdbs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.220] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MXLf-0000vb-00; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:00:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c00212$716cda80$dc8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <006c01c00171$ab93db60$7eb5f1c3@kooijman> <003201c00182$89a5e1e0$915608c3@dodona> <39912ED5.4DDD7383@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:53:54 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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: 09 August 2000 11:13 Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > I think there is some difficulty in arriving at > > that later moment without pause for thought > > from the time the Pass call was made +=+ > > > > > >From last week. > > > Are you saying, Grattan, that L25A does not apply to this > case ? > +=+ I have said nothing that prevents the Director from judging that 25A applies. My discussions have been about the principles of the laws - and the need for some of these to be updated if they are now inconsistent with the use of bidding boxes. The principle that the Director applies is that immediacy is the tenet of the law; if a player makes a call by voice he can only change it if his attempt is prompt and involves no change of mind or intervening attention to another matter. With bidding cards the interpretation of this requirement causes difficulties but the principle should be maintained. I think variation of the requirements is a possible function of the regulations governing the use of bidding boxes. ~ 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 Aug 10 01:18:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79FHWP07734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:17:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79FHPt07730 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:17:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d244.iae.nl [212.61.3.244]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A35BD20F49 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <001701c00215$3b557940$f4033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] alert not seen? Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:17:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C00225.B147EBA0" 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_0010_01C00225.B147EBA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the Netherlands there is a hypothetical case. I do hope it is not an old subject. West North East South pass pass 1NTa South is still studying has cards and the alert was sloppy and north: a. KNOWS that south has not seen it. What can he do? 1. Can he summon the director because the sloppy alert is an = irregularity? 2. Or should he wait until it is his turn to bid sothat he can ask for a = rebid? Violation of Law 73B? 3. Or at his turn to bid asks for an explanation of the alert? Violation = of Law 73B? 4. Or at his turn to bid just asks west: "did you alert?" Violation of = Law 73B? Sothat as a consequence of 2. 3. and 4 south can ask the TD for an = application of Law 21. b. north SUSPECT that south has not seen it. Same questions 1. 2. 3. and 4. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C00225.B147EBA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the Netherlands there is a = hypothetical=20 case.
I do hope it is not an old = subject.
 
West    = North   =20 East    South
pass   =20 pass      1NTa
 
South is still studying has cards = and the alert was sloppy and = north:
a. KNOWS that south has not seen = it.
What can he do?
1. Can he summon the director because = the sloppy=20 alert is an irregularity?
2. Or should he wait until it is his = turn to bid=20 sothat he can ask for a rebid? Violation of Law 73B?
3. Or at his turn to bid asks for an = explanation of=20 the alert? Violation of Law 73B?
4. Or at his turn to bid just asks = west: "did you=20 alert?" Violation of Law 73B?
Sothat as a consequence of 2. 3. = and 4 south=20 can ask the TD for an application of Law 21.
 
b. north SUSPECT that south has not = seen=20 it.
Same questions 1. 2. 3. and = 4.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C00225.B147EBA0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 01:29:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79FTku07751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:29:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79FTet07747 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:29:41 +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 LAA16627 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:31:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008091531.LAA16627@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:31:18 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 August 2000 at 15:26, "David Burn" wrote: > >If, in order for a call to be made, the bidding cards corresponding to >that call must be removed from the bidding box "with intent", then I >believe Grattan is correct. The player has not made the call of >"pass". The question is, of course: what has he done? As far as the >rest of the table is concerned, he has passed - they don't know what >his intent was until he reveals it at a later time. But according to >him - and according to the regulations - he has not passed, since he >did not mean to pass. This, it seems to me, is another case of >Schrodinger's Cat - the player can be regarded as existing in a >superposition of states, until some measurement of his intent is >taken. > I'm not going to take any line on how to rule here, just a couple of thoughts on "intent". 1) A couple of weeks ago, the auction went Me LHO CHO RHO 1S p 3D p* ** * Hold pass card out near the centre of the table, not near the 1S card. ** "Um partner hasn't bid yet." At which point I noticed the colour and shape of the card in my hand, and explained that I intended to Alert the 3D call. Even in a club where I am unfamiliar (there are people who put out pass cards and hold them when they expect the auction to be over, but I am not one of them, of course) it was obvious to all that that was what was going on, and the auction continued apace. What would the "call once made is made" camp do with this? 2) It should be fairly obvious when the green Stop card was being used, as the bidding motion will not have stopped. Yes, there are the "Stop", sit and grandstand, "2C" people, but that practice will get the result it deserves (You passed, sorry. L25A/B, anyone?). The bidder won't be able to see LHO bidding, but it should be obvious that his interest is in his bidding box, which would be an uncommon thing if the pass truly was a pass. 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 Aug 10 01:35:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79FZqE07764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:35:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79FZkt07760 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:35:46 +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 e79Fa3T02238 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:36:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000809110619.00a96d00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:38:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:15 AM 8/9/00, twm wrote: >However, a regulation like "In using the bidding box you should select >the bid you wish to make, remove it from the bidding box and check the >face. If, at this stage you realise the card is not the one you >intend to play you should make the table aware of the problem and take >the time you need to correct it. Otherwise place the card neatly on >the table in front of you and release it. Once you have released the >card Law25 will no longer apply and the call may not be changed." >would be reasonably easy for everyone. I like it. Of course, it doesn't address the problem when bidding other than with bidding boxes. Although there does not appear to be anything in the laws that explicitly says so, the general tone of TFLB certainly suggests that the "baseline assumption" behind the laws regarding the auction is that they are intended to address spoken bidding; this is also strongly suggested by the wording of L80E. My views may be local and parochial, but it seems to me that bidding boxes are on their way to becoming (if they have not already done so) the prevalent means of bidding throughout the bridge world. Perhaps it will be time in 2005 to revise the laws to reflect a baseline assumption that bidding is generally done with bidding boxes, and to change L80E to address "special conditions for bidding... (such as spoken or written bidding, screens..." >Note1: If a "stop" card is placed as above the placer must make a jump >bid. I don't like this at all. Current practice -- if you place a stop card and follow it with a legal non-jump bid, the bid stands and the stop card is UI to partner -- seems much more sensible. I admit to some sympathy for a suggestion (Mr. Colker's?) I read somewhere not long ago that a player should be allowed to place the stop card when (deliberately) making a non-jump bid in what he believes to be a "tempo-sensitive" position, subject to the understanding that doing so indiscriminately will be penalized as a violation of L74B4. >Note2: This would allow "change of intent" at a slightly later stage >than at present. UI laws would apply. This seems wrong. I read Tim's proposed wording as cutting off "change of intent" as soon as the bid card hits the table, whereas now it is permitted "until LHO calls". As I've said before, I personally do not believe that there should be any provision whatsoever for "change of intent" (AKA "purposeful correction"), and would want to apply Tim's wording to a "L25B-less" L25 that was rewritten to address inadvertent calls only. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 01:53:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79Frq307787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:53:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79Frjt07783 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MYAm-00074U-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:53:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:11:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding 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 Martin Sinot wrote: >Timmermans, Catelijne wrote: >>a bit of a theoretical question my partner and I were wondering about: >> >>clubnight, N-S play together for the first time. >> >>A little way into playing a contract the leader asks north about their >>discarding, leader answers: "I take it as suit preference but we haven't >>discussed it". My partner considers this to be putting two options on the >>table and sais that north shouldn't / is not allowed to do that. I didn't >>agree, north has said they haven't discussed it and volunteers extra >>information. >> >>the questions: >> >>- is north putting two options on the table and is he allowed to do so if >he >>is. >>- is the situation different if north answers "we haven't discussed it but >I >>take it as suit preference" (actually this is what I heard the leader say). >> >>incidentally, most people at this club do play suit preference discarding >>.... (we are one of the few exceptions). >Saying that you have no agreements on a discard is a valid answer. Never >say how you take something. Players should disclose any agreements they >have, if any, but never any conclusions they draw. > >So in this case, North should have answered, "We have not discussed it." >Period. It is very nice that North volunteers extra information, but >declarer has no right on that information, unless it was really NS's >agreement. Yerrss. But partnership understandings do come sometimes from groups of players. If I play tomorrow with Ian Spoors [hi Ian!] there are certain things I can probably rely on because he plays at a reasoanbly high level in England, but I would have a different guess as to what bids might mean playing with Alan LeBendig. for example, witrhout any discussion of system at all, I would assume that 1S - 2C shows 8+HCP from Ian Spoors, and 11+HCP from Alan LeBendig. Since there is some understanding here I think it a good idea to tell the opponents. The reply that feels right to me to Catelijne's situation is "We have no agreement as to discards - we are playing together for the first time. Of course, you know that most people in this club play suit preference." That is completely accurate and covers all the partnership understanding that you have. -- 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 Thu Aug 10 01:54:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79FsWN07800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:54:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79FsPt07796 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07035 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:51:48 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39913380.2868113B@village.uunet.be> References: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC203964800@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> <39913380.2868113B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:43:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael writes: >The explanation in all these cases is "A". > >If it turns out to be B (or C) there has been >misinformation. > >If it turns out to be B, the ones who have stated this are >not to be ruled better than the ones who have not. >If it turns out to be C, the ones who have stated B are not >to be ruled worse than the ones who have said nothing but A. > >That is my personal opinion though, David S has a voiced >opinion which is different. He believes (if I may be so >bold as to tell them what I think you believe, David) is >that it is wrong for a player to say "A" when in fact the >true answer is "we have not discussed this, but the logical >system for us would be A". > >I don't know what he would rule if this player did in fact >say A, which cannot be construed a misinformation, even when >it is technically a lie. If the partnership agreement is "A", then one is required to say so, yes. However, bridge players, like bridge lawmakers, are rarely logicians. They may have made an incomplete agreement. They may not realize they've done so until a situation comes up that highlights it. Are they supposed then to suspend their bridge judgement? I have one regular partner with whom I religiously adhere to our agreements, because she is not capable of dealing with situations where I don't. I have another whose "general bridge knowledge" and quickness of thought are such that I have no fear of deviating from agreements when it seems obvious to do so. And vice versa. More often than not, we land in the right place. It seems wrong, somehow, to explain "our agreement is A" with that second partner, when the situation indicates that he may well have deviated from that agreement, because it was incomplete (i.e., it didn't really cover *this* situation). My expectation that he might deviate is partly "general bridge knowledge", but it's also "partnership experience". I don't see how you can suggest I should not disclose 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/AwUBOZF+pr2UW3au93vOEQIAZACfZtsNQat4gAA6rhGYwsLZ6zDk9FUAoLn+ x105R+zAK5m1Vx1Acs49RWgn =8dw2 -----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 Aug 10 02:11:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79GBG707827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 02:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f30.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79GBBt07823 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 02:11:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:11:03 -0700 Received: from 172.142.203.22 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 09 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.203.22] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:11:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2000 16:11:03.0243 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A5159B0:01C0021C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >+=+ Poor scholar of English that I am, I had assumed >that a regulation that says ".... removed from the >bidding box with apparent intent." Does this have a tacitly understood verb, "apparent intent (to bid)," similar to the construction of "she is younger than I (am)?" I can think of a few cases where a person may intentionally remove a card from the bidding box with no intent to bid and I don't think we should be sticking them with a call. >makes a statement >about the intent of removing from the box. So I >could not see that the player had made a call if he >removed it accidentally or inadvertently from the >box and this was apparent. But OK, so we say he >has made a call - at the moment when he put the >green card on the table since at that moment >it was not apparent he had not intended to >remove that green card from the bidding box. I agree. He has intended to bid even if the call made was not the one intended. -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 Aug 10 02:35:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79GYOp07851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 02:34:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79GYGt07847 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 02:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18151 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008091635.MAA18151@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:35:54 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 8 August 2000 at 19:32, Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: >> >> Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: >> >> >If your LHO hasn't bid yet it is a change of call. If he has it is >> >a BOOT. >> >> I might buy that, if Law 25A said "Until his LHO makes a call". But >> that's not what it says, so I don't. >> >> Ed > > This is the essence of our disagreement. Nothing that has been >said so far in this thread convinced me that a pass card put >on the table doesn't constitute a call being made (this view is >not contradictory with any of Laws in TFLB neither with the "apparent >intent" WBF guideline). I agree to here. >So to me a pass put on the table is a call that has been made unless >the passer _immediately_ says "Sorry I didn't mean that!". I disagree here. Even if passer immediately says "sorry", the call has been made. We're in classic L25A world here. While I agree with David Burn as to what L25A *should* look like, I know that it *does* look like it does to deal with that situation. But it is a call retracted, not a "not a call". >If it >takes that long that LHO is able to make a call using bidding >boxes that I simply can't think of opener changing his call >"inadvertantly, without a pause for thought". As I said earlier, I pull out a stop card and put it on the table. I look to my bidding box and reach over to grab the 3D card. By the time the 3D card is out of the box and heading toward the table, LHO (who has ignored all my mannerisms after the green card hit the table) has bid 1S. Ok, I've made an infraction - pulling out a green stop card. Everything else is completely above board - but we're still in L25A country, and it's obvious from anyone who was watching me that I was bidding "stop-3D". But the table still says "pass 1S". And that is where we came in, as the priest said to the actress. According to L25A, I am allowed to change my call, because it's obvious that it was inadvertent. LHO must now change her call, and is the 1S I A or U to each side? Michael (who opened 1S on AKQJ98 xx Kxx xx on Saturday by pulling out the 1NT card. By the time I noticed what I had "said", I chose not to try for a L25A ruling, but just let it go. I must have lived right, because despite partner's nice 9-count and 3 spades, 8 tricks in spades was the limit of the hand, after 1NT X(DONT) p 2C; 2S AP). P.S. Please, please, *please* take extra care to trim posts, especially now that Markus has put in the administrivia .sig. If nothing else, trim that off so that we don't get 4 of them sitting on the bottom of your "shot heard round the world". mdf -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 03:00:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79H0C307891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 03:00:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79H05t07887 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 03:00:06 +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 NAA18934 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008091701.NAA18934@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B66A@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:01:44 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 9 August 2000 at 1:34, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article <004901c00144$afe99a60$875a063e@D457300>, David Burn > writes > >snip > >>I hope so. It's got to be sorted out somehow. "A call once made may >>not be changed", anyone? >> >I'm 100% with this. It'll probably stop me looking at Wendy when I'm >making a skip bid. cheers john Please, John, quit skipping around Wendy. We're trying to discuss bridge here, and it's hard enough concentrating *without* that image running through my head. And anyway, you don't wan't to be renamed Peter, do you? Thanks, Michael (what, no pixie-dust jokes allowed?). P.S. Hmm. John->Wendy->Peter->Paul->John. Interesting. mdf -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 03:29:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79HTMF07921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 03:29:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79HTGt07917 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 03:29:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA00989 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:29:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000809110619.00a96d00@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > Although there does not appear to be anything in the laws that > explicitly says so, the general tone of TFLB certainly suggests > that the "baseline assumption" behind the laws regarding the > auction is that they are intended to address spoken bidding; this > is also strongly suggested by the wording of L80E. L25a is generally OK with spoken bidding since if you don't notice your slip of the tongue pretty smartish you probably won't realise until some outside force reminds you. > >Note1: If a "stop" card is placed as above the placer must make a > jump > >bid. > > I don't like this at all. Current practice -- if you place a stop > card and follow it with a legal non-jump bid, the bid stands and > the stop card is UI to partner -- seems much more sensible. OK > I admit to some sympathy for a suggestion (Mr. Colker's?) I read > somewhere not long ago that a player should be allowed to place the > stop card when (deliberately) making a non-jump bid in what he > believes to be a "tempo-sensitive" position, subject to the > understanding that doing so indiscriminately will be penalized as a > violation of L74B4. I was thinking about this as reasonable. I decided that the likely transmission of UI to partner would render it unworkable. > >Note2: This would allow "change of intent" at a slightly later > stage > >than at present. UI laws would apply. > > This seems wrong. I read Tim's proposed wording as cutting off > "change of intent" as soon as the bid card hits the table, whereas > now it is permitted "until LHO calls". That's a L25b change (and would indeed be restricted to the time between "inspection" and "releasing" by my wording). Current regulation allows change of intent (possible UI penalty) before the bid is made (ie clears the box). My wording would allow it up to the point of inspection unless it was obvious (eg changing a bid to a call). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 04:24:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79IO4O07960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 04:24:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79INst07956 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 04:23:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.79] (d18182a4f.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.79]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17317 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:14:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001701c00215$3b557940$f4033dd4@default> References: <001701c00215$3b557940$f4033dd4@default> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:18:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] alert not seen? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Ben Schelen" writes: >In the Netherlands there is a hypothetical case. >I do hope it is not an old subject. > >West North East South >pass pass 1NTa > >South is still studying has cards and the alert was sloppy and north: >a. KNOWS that south has not seen it. >What can he do? >1. Can he summon the director because the sloppy alert is an irregularity? >2. Or should he wait until it is his turn to bid sothat he can ask >for a rebid? Violation of Law 73B? >3. Or at his turn to bid asks for an explanation of the alert? >Violation of Law 73B? >4. Or at his turn to bid just asks west: "did you alert?" Violation >of Law 73B? >Sothat as a consequence of 2. 3. and 4 south can ask the TD for an >application of Law 21. > >b. north SUSPECT that south has not seen it. >Same questions 1. 2. 3. and 4. Hm. If the alert regs in the Netherlands are similar to those in the ACBL, then it is West's responsibility to ensure that both North and South are aware of the alert. If it later turns out that South didn't see it, and NS were damaged thereby, EW are the offending side for ruling purposes, and NS rate a score adjustment. At the point where West alerts, and before South calls, there may or may not have been an irregularity. Certainly if North is certain South hasn't seen the alert, there has been one. Law 9 says once attention is drawn to such, the TD *must* be called. North doesn't have to "draw attention", but nothing says he can't - so he should call. IMO, if North isn't sure whether South is aware of it, he should still call - let the TD sort it out. If in fact South *did* see the alert, no harm is done. If North waits until his turn, and then asks for an explanation of the alert (which is proper procedure *for asking for an explanation*) then if there was to be damage from the failure to alert properly, it's already happened. We ought to try to prevent that, if possible under the laws - and I think it is. Not sure what you mean in item 2 about "ask for a rebid". North should *not* suggest that his partner reconsider his call, if that's what you're saying. Asking "did you alert" when he *knows* West alerted, or asking for an explanation simply to make South aware of the alert, is not, I think, legal. Caveat: I could be w-w-w-wrong. If so, I expect someone here will say so. :-) 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/AwUBOZGhsb2UW3au93vOEQK5bgCgvDAUp/78FXajirYIzVMQzgtcwR0Ani6M 9cxrFSNPMURvmrEZFyKpSRHh =iFat -----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 Aug 10 06:11:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79KAJU08053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:10:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e79KACt08049 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:10:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive46o.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.216]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22546; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00b701c0023e$159220e0$d810f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 16:11:58 -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: Todd Zimnoch To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, August 07, 2000 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A >>From: David Stevenson >> Since I do not understand nor agree with this - and I find >>disagreements between myself and Kojak extremely rare - and there was a >>long screed from Grattan that also seemed on a different subject, >>perhaps I could just restate what I believe to be the basic argument. > > You really should understand something before you go on record as >disagreeing with it. > You really should read what he wrote before you snipe at it. He did not say he disagreed. He said he did not agree. If you were to launch a deep discussion of quantum theory leading to your opinion on a question over there might be some doubt and ask if I agreed, I would say I did not. This would mean that I did not understand you point and therefore could neither agree nor disagree, rather than that I disagreed with your point. (SNIP)> Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the time LHO has bid, >either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the opening passer >has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh s--t, I didn't mean to >pass," should come to mind. > There was no need to spell the word out. As we have noted in the thread there are ladies present...and presumably even Some gentlemen. 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 Thu Aug 10 08:46:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79MjLg08152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:45:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e79MjEt08148 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:45:15 +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 SAA27386 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 18:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 18:46:53 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One of the matters on the table at the ACBL Board of Directors meetings being held this week is the following: Item 002-124: Viewing Convention Card Moved that: the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a player participating in any game below the level of Regional Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or her own convention card. I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or grateful. Anyone else have thoughts on this matter? It might at least get people to have two... 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 Aug 10 09:54:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e79Ns8p08214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:54:08 +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 e79Ns2t08209 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:54:03 +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 JAA13562 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:50:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:50:54 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:53:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 10/08/2000 09:48:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [big snip] "But that's a fine theoretical distinction, and in real life "I take it as" is common enough that it seems a bit churlish to object to the mis-phrasing." I agree that the phrase, "We have not discussed it, but I am taking it as ..." is unfortunately common. However, if there is truly no agreement, what Partner A announces as their interpretation of an ambiguous call or play provides UI to Partner B. One reason the Australian Bridge Federation prohibits alerts above 3NT is to prevent UI being transmitted on whether an ambiguous 4C bid is being *taken as* Gerber. 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 Aug 10 10:26:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A0QOm08244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:26:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7A0QHt08240 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:26:18 +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 13MgAl-000CgM-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:26:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:25:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A bit off-topic References: <39891891.2C58D2E1@village.uunet.be> <398F0322.C7FB37B3@village.uunet.be> <004101c00130$959b1300$d4ae01d5@D457300> <39902C70.86BDAF81@village.uunet.be> <005901c001f6$b47dcda0$b210073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <005901c001f6$b47dcda0$b210073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005901c001f6$b47dcda0$b210073e@D457300>, David Burn writes > >No, I didn't. The second message I sent, in which I discarded the king >of diamonds on the king of clubs, was clearly sent without pause for >thought after the first one. It should therefore be allowed under Law >45C4B. But if this is not permitted, then I claim the right under Law >25 to change my call of 4H to 3NT. After all, it is surely obvious >when I played a heart and not a club to trick three that I was under >the impression that I had not bid four hearts. Therefore, according to >certain eminent authorities, I hadn't. Umm. what is written on your scorecard? I will however accept that the figure which appears to be a 4 is in fact your encrypted method of writing a 3 (this is UI to opponents overlooking your scorecard btw) and since you went to a public school you clearly can't form your letters properly so I'll accept the H is in fact an N. 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 Thu Aug 10 10:50:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A0oWR08274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:50:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7A0oLt08265 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MgXz-000D03-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:50:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:49:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <398EA58F.A27FE483@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: >At 14:03 7/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>Now, L25A has a time limit. >> >>Until partner has called. >> >>This implies that there are cases possible where LHO has >>already called, and we are still in a position to apply >>L25A. >> >>And that is the situation. No more, no less. >> >>There has been a call (1) >>There has been a call by LHO (2) >>The player now realises that call (1) was made under all the >>circumstances that make a change under L25A allowable, and >>the TD agrees with this and allows the change. >>There is now a new call (3) >> >>What happens to call (2) ? > >Yes this is the question that I think is interesting. > >>Nowhere is this said in the laws, but we all agree that the >>only sensible solution is to apply L21B1 on this. > >I don't know how sensible this really is, since I tend to also question if >any information can be really given by a truely inadvertent action. > >We have a Law (25A) which says in some circumstances an inadvertent call >may be changed up to the point when partner calls, however it doesn't >provide any real guidance about the status of the intervening call of LHO. > >If Law 25A allows a change, then Ton and David say that the only Law which >will authorise us to also withdraw LHO's call is 21B. If this is true then >I think we have a problem (at least for those including Grattan and Kojak >who can't see any original mis-information which would be required in order >to activate Law 21B). > >Why don't we admit that we have a situation that the Laws at the moment >don't adequately handle? I think that both sides of this discussion are >trying different (and obviously imperfect) approaches to avoid the above >unpalative fact. That, of course, is one view. It is not mine. We have adequate Laws to cover the situation without reaching too far. What are we trying to do on BLML, have a deep semantic argument [which I am quite sure I would lose] or trying to control a game of bridge? >One group is avoiding the issue by questioning whether the initial >placement of the Pass card really constitutes a call. They also question >the immediacy of the attempted change and cast doubts about single thought >processes, which would thus allow them to apply 25B instead (which in >reality does not permit a change after LHO has called). > >The other group happily feels that the conditions of 25A were fulfilled, >but then resort to unsatifactory mis-information arguements in order to try >to justify allowing LHO to also withdraw his call without penalty. Forget the semantics for a moment. Please consider the game. It is a common occurrence with bidding boxes that people withdraw the wrong card from the box. Without L25A we would have to try to work out whether we can change it under the BB regs - or perhaps change the BB regs to suit. But we have L25A, and as bidding boxes have become more popular it is obvious that the accepted interpretation of this Law in England has been very acceptable to the players. I like to think that is good. If you take a card out of the box, and then look at it and see it is not the right card, then you may change it. On average that happens about twenty times a session when I play, and it gets changed without benefit of Director, and no-one comments or thinks anything of it. The English interpretation of the Law is acceded to: we are talking inadvertency and immediacy, because we are talking of occurrences where a player sees what is in front of him and immediately makes it clear he did not mean that. Good. It is working well. Now, when I say the English interpretation, I understood this to be an accepted world-wide interpretation until this thread. It is the way the game is played in England, Wales, France, Denmark, Russia, Irish Republic and Poland, to my own knowledge. There are two tests: inadvertency, which no-one is arguing here, and immediacy, which I understood everyone to accept as "without pause for thought", such pause being measured from the moment of realisation. There has been an attack in this thread on that latter interpretation, saying that any pause is a pause for thought, and the fact that the player may be thinking about Wendy or whatever is not relevant. I do not accept that a pause for thought can be interpreted as a pause for irrelevant thought. If it meant that, why not say "a pause"? I totally refute any suggestion that the pause for thought should be measured from any time before the player realises he has erred can be a sensible conclusion. Supposing we do accept this interpretation. Let us take a typical example. A player puts a card down without looking at it, gazes into space, finally looks down and says "Erk!". Some people on this list will now say there has been a pause for thought. Apart from not being a sensible interpretation, this is not a particularly fair one. While I accept David B's dislike of being allowed to change, surely if you allow a change at all there is no reason not to allow anyone to change so long as they try to do so immediately they realise they have erred? All this interpretation would really do is to make the TD's job harder by getting him involved in cases that are dealt with automatically now, and make the use of bidding boxes less palatable to the players. It can hardly be fairer to allow inadvertent and immediate changes in some cases and not others. Ok, now suppose you accept this. We now have a game rolling happily along as it is in England these days. You allow inadvertent calls to be changed immediately. But there seem to be two additional problems - which have been linked in this thread. Let us look at them separately. First, some calls are made by two separate cards from the box. So, when someone takes the wrong first card out, it is possible that they appear to have completed the call, as when someone takes a pass card out intending a stop card. Now this is the one that I find too incredible to really produce logical argument. Anyone who says that this cannot be changed under L25A because the pass is a call even though the intent was for half a call has left me behind in bewilderment. If you can change an inadvertent pass which was meant to be a double then why can you not change an inadvertent pass which was meant to be a stop? Second, sometimes the realisation of the mistake is after the next player has called. There seems some incredulity that this can happen: I just wonder where the people who show incredulity are playing their club bridge these days. Not on this planet, I suggest. [For those who are smugly answering Australia, in the little bit I managed to play when I was down there about three times people changed inadvertent calls when they had written the wrong thing. No, I did not call the TD]. We are back to the question of whether the pause for thought is from the realisation of the mistake or not. If it is, then there will be occasions where a change occurs after LHO has called and L25A allows for them. So, no problem. Any remaining problems? Oh yes, what about LHO's call? Well, if he cannot withdraw it, then the game makes no sense. Well, in my view and some others' views L21B covers it adequately enough to run a game of bridge - even if a careful semantic argument would not say so. I cannot see any other sensible way, and I refute the claims that we have had to make this interpretation up: it is a reasonable and sensible one. >If we are truely in a situation where the Laws don't provide for LHO, then >maybe we should just accept this unfortunate situation and use the one Law >provided for this impass. > >How about 12A2? So, when someone changes an inadvertent call by L25A after LHO has called, which is allowed for in the Laws, you would always cancel the board? Why? This is not good for the game, it is not necessary. We have a situation that is adequately covered by the Laws of bridge. Perfection maybe we have not got. We do not need perfection: commonsense should be enough. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Thu Aug 10 10:50:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A0oVJ08273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:50:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7A0oLt08266 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:50:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MgXz-000D02-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:50:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 01:48:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@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: >+=+ It is widely accepted that Law 25 is a monster. > It is time we killed it but the WBFLC has said > it must live until 2005. We could possibly > worry what will take its place.+=+ This is the first I have heard of this. On this list, RGB, and in other discussions there has been a general feeling that L25A is acceptable, L25B is a monster. I do not think that it is "widely accepted" otherwise. ----------------- Eric Landau wrote: >"(a) A player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertant call only >if he indicates immediately, without pause, that his original call was >inadvertant. If legal, his last call stands... This may be simpler, but I feel it will be unacceptable to the majority of bridge players who are now used to bidding boxes. People who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to change it is they do so immediately - and it is not possible to do it immediately until you know you have taken the wrong card out. [s] >The main drawback is that it would not have protected the poor lady who, in >a game I was directing a while back, tried to pull a card from her bid box, >had a dozen or so bid cards come flying out on to the floor, immediately >went under the table to gather up the mess, and then, as soon as she came >up for air, noticed that the card that actually wound up on the table was >not her intended call, despite the fact that everyone at the table agreed >that the inadvertant nature of her call was obvious from the fact that she >attempted to correct it the instant she noticed what it was. But I believe >we should be willing to pay that particular price for the resulting >simplicity and clarity of "immediately, without pause". The main drawback is nothing of the sort. That situation is rare. The main drawback is the far more common situation where a player does not look at the card as he takes it out. Once he looks at it you will cry "Foul, there has been a Pause!". ---------- Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: "Kooijman, A." >>A question to finish with: could you describe a situation using bidding >>boxes, in which a player may change his call under 25A? No, we are not >>using screens. > > Most any and all inadvertant calls. For me, the problem is that when >the bidder sees that his LHO has bid, there is a thought process involved in >getting from his LHO's bid to realizing that he has miscalled. I don't see >the important difference between this and remembering he's using a different >bidding system and then realizing he's made a mistake. There is a >difference of original intent -- the green stop card player never intended >to pass, but the laws/regulations make no reference to actual intent. The reference to intent may be indirect, but it is there in the use of the word inadvertent. If the green stop card player intended to pass, his green card was not inadvertent: if he did not intend to then it was inadvertent. ---------- David Burn wrote: >This means, or at least I intended it to mean, that there should be a >distinction between "with intent" and "with apparent intent", and that >I believe (contrary to Grattan's suggestion) that according to the >bidding box regulation as written, the man had indeed made a call of >"pass". I am sorry if this was not clear, but... I have always understood the phrase "with apparent intent" to cover such things as knocking a bidding box over and cards falling out. If a player reaches into his box and removes a card, then in my view he has done so "with apparent intent". It is still possible that he has not taken out the card he intended. ------------ Grattan Endicott wrote: >You want to time >the pause from the point of realisation of the >error even though delayed - we don't do that >with spoken bids do we? - and I say it has to be >all one with making the call and immediacy in >correcting it. Certainly we do. The interpretation that it is from the realisation of the error is considered logical for any form of bidding. Herman gave an example of an inadvertent call he allowed to be changed after dummy refused to put trumps on the right because the final bid had been 7NT. Now I do not know what form that bid took, but it does not matter: the realisation of the error was when dummy pointed out the contract was no- trumps. Whether you agree with Herman's ruling or not [and it was under a former Law book] it surely makes no difference how the call was made. ---------- Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: "ton kooijman" >>What happens >>if he realises his mistake not immediately? You agreed earlier that the >>laws >>allow to apply 25A till a later moment. > Is the method of how he realizes his mistake at all important? Not in my view. You are allowed to change a call if three conditions are met, inadvertency, immediacy, partner having not called subsequently. No other conditions are required by Law. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Thu Aug 10 17:14:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A7DD308502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:13:13 +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 e7A7D1t08493 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:13:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MmWN-0004Sj-00; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:12:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01c0029a$6bff81a0$0f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman><001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona><3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au><003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:50:02 +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: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 1:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ It is widely accepted that Law 25 is a monster. > > It is time we killed it but the WBFLC has said > > it must live until 2005. We could possibly > > worry what will take its place.+=+ > > This is the first I have heard of this. On this list, RGB, and in > other discussions there has been a general feeling that L25A is > acceptable, L25B is a monster. I do not think that it is "widely > accepted" otherwise. > +=+ I referred to L25 as a whole; David wants to treat it like the curate's egg - "good in parts". However, when it goes on the stocks for a refit the WBFLC will need to look at the whole and decide how it wants it to work. We may even clear up the little assumptions that are made where the law is not so clear about them . ~ 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 Aug 10 17:14:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A7DBg08501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:13:12 +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 e7A7D2t08494 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:13:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MmWP-0004Sj-00; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:12:57 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c0029a$6ce8f740$0f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman><001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <398EA58F.A27FE483@village.uunet.be><3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:11:36 +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, August 10, 2000 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A . . > > That, of course, is one view. It is not mine. We have adequate Laws > to cover the situation without reaching too far. What are we trying to > do on BLML, have a deep semantic argument [which I am quite sure I would > lose] or trying to control a game of bridge? > +=+ On blml we are not trying to control anything. The responsibility for that lies elsewhere. We have a forum for discussion which is useful at times for casting light on situations existing under the laws and, distasteful as it may be to the confident views of a Tournament Director who has a set view, the first question to be asked is always "Is this right?" The second question should be "where is the official English version of the law? - let's have another look at it." After all, it was David, amongst others, who once was so strong in saying that we must deal with the laws as they are written. (The only reason to go to the laws in a local language should be to see if the translation is accurate, and this is perhaps better done when we are clear what the master text says.) Occasionally something comes up that will be worthy of attention where authority resides and, at present anyway, it may get noted with this in mind. That is a major benefit of blml. ~ 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 Aug 10 17:34:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A7Xjt08528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:33:45 +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 e7A7XYt08524 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:33:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA03488 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 10 09:34:24 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSSTLQUKKW0005IJ@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:33:28 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:31:02 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:33:26 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'Craig Senior'" , Todd Zimnoch , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B67C@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 from Graig: > > (SNIP)> Like others, I don't think L25A applies. By the > time LHO has > bid, > >either LHO has bid extremely quick and out-of-tempo or the > opening passer > >has had time to think. Specifically the thought, "Oh s--t, > I didn't mean > to > >pass," should come to mind. So What? In such a situation the only thought allowed is just that: 'Oh saint, I didn't mean to pass'. Shouldn't we try to be somewhat practical here? If we do not allow this, please give me an example of an inadvertent call that may be changed under L25A (I asked this before to others but the answers didn't come up yet). It does not help if the example goes as follows: the player takes out 1H, calls the director telling him he wanted to bid 1S. The director asks him whether he thought 'oh saint, I didn't mean to bid 1H'. He answers no and now the director allows him to change his call. ton > > > There was no need to spell the word out. As we have noted in > the thread > there are ladies present...and presumably even Some gentlemen. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 18:08:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A888N08566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:08:09 +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 e7A880t08560 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:08:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.200] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MnNW-0005bW-00; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:07:50 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c002a2$179879c0$c85908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <200008082235.SAA10228@cfa183.harvard.edu><006101c001db$c7261040$5f5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:04:51 +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: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > "Grattan Endicott" writes: > > >just recognize that the procedure > >has not conformed to the bidding > >box requirements (regulations) > >and use the infraction to refer to > >Law 16C. > > You keep talking about Law 16C, but that law doesn't answer the > question what to do about 2nd player's call which is on the table, > after dealer withdraws his "pass". As far as I can see, the only law > which may do so is 21B, and then only if the "pass" is considered > misinformation. > +=+ That's curious. I would have thought L16C provides that LHO has the option of withdrawing his call and if he does so gives protection against use of information from that call by offending opponents. As I read the English text of 16C it seems LHO may have the option even if the offender does not change his pass, perhaps desirable if offender was going to open in the suit LHO has bid. ~ 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 Aug 10 18:08:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A884U08562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:08:04 +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 e7A87ut08557 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.200] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MnNU-0005bW-00; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:07:48 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c002a2$167b22e0$c85908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:46:59 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 11:46 PM Subject: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... > One of the matters on the table at the ACBL Board of Directors meetings > being held this week is the following: > > Item 002-124: Viewing Convention Card > > Moved that: > > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or > her own convention card. > +=+ This would be for a version of the game in which additional channels of communication with partner are needed? Or do they have screens? They could designate all conventions as 'unusual methods' and they could be listed, with defences (the latter not being needed much where opponents are not using the same conventions as we are). See footnote to Law 40E2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ P.S. Perhaps I should insert ;-( in case one of our more earnest brethren reads this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 18:41:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7A8eut08596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:40:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7A8d9t08590 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:39:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA10164 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:39:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 10 10:40:00 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JSSVW31ALA0005MD@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:39:04 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:36:38 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:39:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B67F@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 > This is the first I have heard of this. On this list, RGB, and in > other discussions there has been a general feeling that L25A is > acceptable, L25B is a monster. I do not think that it is "widely > accepted" otherwise. I agree with David, the problem is that we project 200 messages about one subject, without even reaching full agreement, as having to deal with a monster in stead of having to deal with people. 25A is wonderful if we can get a better description or interpretation when being allowed to change (stretching inadvertent a little bit may be; David B.tries to find his previous proposal) and then 25B could leave for twenty years (this is just a tiny suggestion dear members of THE WBFLC). > > ----------------- > > Eric Landau wrote: > > >"(a) A player may substitute his intended call for an > inadvertant call only > >if he indicates immediately, without pause, that his > original call was > >inadvertant. If legal, his last call stands... > > This may be simpler, but I feel it will be unacceptable to the > majority of bridge players who are now used to bidding boxes. People > who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to > change it > is they do so immediately - and it is not possible to do it > immediately > until you know you have taken the wrong card out. > > [s] > > >The main drawback is that it would not have protected the > poor lady who, in > >a game I was directing a while back, tried to pull a card > from her bid box, > >had a dozen or so bid cards come flying out on to the floor, > immediately > >went under the table to gather up the mess, and then, as > soon as she came > >up for air, noticed that the card that actually wound up on > the table was > >not her intended call, despite the fact that everyone at the > table agreed > >that the inadvertant nature of her call was obvious from the > fact that she > >attempted to correct it the instant she noticed what it was. > But I believe > >we should be willing to pay that particular price for the resulting > >simplicity and clarity of "immediately, without pause". > > The main drawback is nothing of the sort. That situation is rare. > The main drawback is the far more common situation where a player does > not look at the card as he takes it out. Once he looks at it you will > cry "Foul, there has been a Pause!". > > ---------- > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >>From: "Kooijman, A." > >>A question to finish with: could you describe a situation > using bidding > >>boxes, in which a player may change his call under 25A? > No, we are not > >>using screens. > > > > Most any and all inadvertant calls. That answer I didn't wait for. For me, the > problem is that when > >the bidder sees that his LHO has bid, there is a thought > process involved in > >getting from his LHO's bid to realizing that he has > miscalled. I don't see > >the important difference between this and remembering he's > using a different > >bidding system and then realizing he's made a mistake. Whether the difference is important or not is not relevant. The laws clearly say that the player may not change that call under 25A, he may under 25B. There is a > >difference of original intent -- the green stop card player > never intended > >to pass, but the laws/regulations make no reference to actual intent. > > The reference to intent may be indirect, but it is there in > the use of > the word inadvertent. If the green stop card player intended to pass, > his green card was not inadvertent: if he did not intend to > then it was > inadvertent. > > ---------- > > David Burn wrote: > > >This means, or at least I intended it to mean, that there should be a > >distinction between "with intent" and "with apparent > intent", and that > >I believe (contrary to Grattan's suggestion) that according to the > >bidding box regulation as written, the man had indeed made a call of > >"pass". I am sorry if this was not clear, but... > > I have always understood the phrase "with apparent intent" to cover > such things as knocking a bidding box over and cards falling > out. If a > player reaches into his box and removes a card, then in my view he has > done so "with apparent intent". It is still possible that he has not > taken out the card he intended. Hurray for the EBU once more, or is this just a personal opinion? Hurray for you then. > > ------------ > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >You want to time > >the pause from the point of realisation of the > >error even though delayed - we don't do that > >with spoken bids do we? Yes we do, TD's do. But in the first place an inadvertent spoken call is hardly ever happening (contrary to pulling wrong bidding cards) and secondly if it happens the process of realising it mostly takes a split second. But not always. The following happens once in while: somebody making a statement says: 'And then if 'A' happens we should be prepared to do this, but if .. and now he shows confusion, because he wanted to follow with 'A' and suddenly realises that he said A before in stead of B. So he starts all over again: If 'B' happens we should be prepared to do this, but if 'A' happens .....The man was thinking all the time, after saying inadvertently 'A' in stead of 'B' and in my opinion should be allowed to substitute 'B' without penalty. I had a case during play (probably I told it before, but who cares) in the Eur Ch. in Turku, Finland 1989. An Italian lady declarer asked for the K of hearts from dummy and it was ruffed by RHO. Now declarer showed astonishment, because the ruff for her was impossible. She called the TD (and I was the lucky one) and explained to me that she asked for the K of spades but the K of H was played and she didn't understand it. The three others agreed that she asked for the K of H. I established that she was void in spades herself, had still a loser in a side suit (the SK was bare on the table and spades were only played once) and the holding in hearts on the table was AKJT8 and she had some. She played 5C. Her English was hardly sufficient to play international bridge. All these facts together made me decide that her call for the K of H was inadvertent and I allowed her to play the K of S and admired my decison (this was the first time ever I had such a problem). The opponents appealed (they had never seen such a crazy decision)and the AC upheld my decision, saying that establishing the inadvertency could best be done by the TD at the table, with all the inferences there becoming apparent. I used 45C4b for that (the now famous law used to decide that the 6C was made after going one off in play, earlier this year in an ACBL national; it doesn't say till when the card may be substituted so the TD and AC did play the board afterwards, L25 is much better so) A long story to support my opinion that immediacy is involved, but not related to the moment of the inadvertent call, but related to the moment of discovering (which could be too late). ton - and I say it has to be > >all one with making the call and immediacy in > >correcting it. > > Certainly we do. The interpretation that it is from the realisation > of the error is considered logical for any form of bidding. > Herman gave > an example of an inadvertent call he allowed to be changed after dummy > refused to put trumps on the right because the final bid had been 7NT. > Now I do not know what form that bid took, but it does not matter: the > realisation of the error was when dummy pointed out the > contract was no- > trumps. Whether you agree with Herman's ruling or not [and > it was under > a former Law book] it surely makes no difference how the call > was made. > > ---------- > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >>From: "ton kooijman" > > >>What happens > >>if he realises his mistake not immediately? You agreed > earlier that the > >>laws > >>allow to apply 25A till a later moment. > > > Is the method of how he realizes his mistake at all important? > > Not in my view. You are allowed to change a call if three > conditions > are met, inadvertency, immediacy, partner having not called > subsequently. No other conditions are required by Law. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 > Copy emails to may reach me especially > in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 20:05:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AA4No08674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:04:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AA4Ft08670 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:04:16 +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 MAA16179; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:02:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA08908; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:03:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000810121304.008c4950@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:13:04 +0200 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] alert not seen? In-Reply-To: <001701c00215$3b557940$f4033dd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:17 9/08/00 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: > In the Netherlands there is a hypothetical case. I do hope it is not an >old subject. South 1NTa South is still studying has >cards and and north: a. KNOWS that south has not seen it. What can he do? >1. Can he summon the director because the sloppy alert is an irregularity? >2. Or should he wait until it is his turn to bid sothat he can ask for a >rebid? Violation of Law 73B? 3. Or at his turn to bid asks for an >explanation of the alert? Violation of Law 73B? 4. Or at his turn to bid >just asks west: "did you alert?" Violation of Law 73B? 3. and 4 south >can ask the TD for an application of Law 21. b. north SUSPECT that south >has not seen it. 3. and 4. AG : I would use 3 : ask for an explanation. Isn't it the normal procedure ? Since I am not allowed to take advantage of the fact that partner didn't ask, the fact that I know why he didn't ask is irrelevant. And opponaents might hardly complain that I ask about an alerted rebid. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 20:06:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AA6qn08687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:06:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AA6at08683 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:06:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-158.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.158]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11609 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:06:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39914B98.8728873C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:16:24 +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: [BLML] L25A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > First - point c). The more complicated the laws are the > more the "consumers" of the law need lawyers. That's why the > lawyers create (in their best interest) more complicated laws > than they should. This is by means a "conspiracy theory" - this > is a natural process that happens all the time in all parliaments > all over the world. Be that as it may - we still have the law we have, and we have to deal with that one. > Sometimes they also create unenforceable > - for they same reason (I might well ask you Ton the same > question; you are one of the bridge lawmakers. L25 is partailly > uneforceable; how the TD who > is not even wathing the play is supposed to know whether the > a change of call was inadvertant or not? Come on Konrad, that is never a problem. I have never faced this problem and did not know what to decide. Bridge players are usually honest. There is a huge difference between "I picked the wrong bidding card" and "I thought the bidding was over so I passed on a cue bid". There is almost never a problem concerning this decision. > Why should he ever > face this task?). The legislators have to create laws - > otherwise why we would need them? > Getting back to bridge. Bridge is not a as complicated > as the real world. It is fairly easy to codify. True, not > everything can be covered by a simple "rule of thumb" > (e.g. a law saying that "a revoke always costs 1 trick" would > lead sometimes to situations where committing a revoke intentionally > would be beneficial to the revoker) but what can be should not be > unnecessary complicated. L25 is a the most classical example > albeit not the only one. Look - thanks to the existence of > such a complicated and ambiguous sets of rules many people have > got work to do; the books contaning comments to the Bridge Law > contain hundreds of pages; we have a bunch of WBF/Zonal/NCBOs > guidelines, Code of Practice, "stupid mistake" corollary etc. > and... BLML! There are a lot > more chess discussion groups than bridge discussion groups > but no Chess Law Mailing List. Why? Because a "move once made > cannot be taken back". Well, chess is a fairly simple game. So is Golf. Which has even more rules than bridge. No doubt there is a golf-lml. > The whole discussion reminds me what communism was doing > over the years: solving problems that would have never arisen > without communism. And communism was quite good at it. So > are the participants of this discussion; there is so > much sophisticated knowledge involved in it; so much tremendous > intellectual effort was put and clever ways were devised on > this list to solve problems that magically disappear when > you remove a Law that only exists in bridge; anywhere else > in the world it says "you cannot take back your move" - > and is a fundamental rule of all games. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Good Konrad. But then you certainly need a different regulation concerning bidding boxes. If you want to bid 3Sp, but 3NT comes out with it, you must have a rule that says you can put back the 3NT card. Well, just how long do you intend to allow the player to "take back his move" ? The current time limit is "until partner has called". You favour another time, but this does not mean all problems are suddenly solved. -- 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 Aug 10 20:41:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AAeem08710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:40:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AAeXt08706 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:40:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA26621 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:40:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:40 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... 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: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Michael Farebrother wrote: > Moved that: > > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to > his or her own convention card. > I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or > grateful. This covers, one would assume, games for novices or people who want to be treated like novices. Provided those who want to play proper bridge can get a real game it shouldn't cause a problem should it. 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 Thu Aug 10 22:56:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ACtEX08859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7ACt7t08855 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:55:08 +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 e7ACtSw78420 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:55:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810083700.00b478b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:57:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... In-Reply-To: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:46 PM 8/9/00, blml wrote: >One of the matters on the table at the ACBL Board of Directors meetings >being held this week is the following: > >Item 002-124: Viewing Convention Card > >Moved that: > >the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its >application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a >player participating in any game below the level of Regional >Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or >her own convention card. > > > >I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or grateful. >Anyone else have thoughts on this matter? It might at least get people >to have two... I'd be worried. Not so much about the specific proposal, which seems relatively innocuous, but rather about the underlying attitude that produced it. I'm concerned about the continuing trend towards making the game "easier" for players at "lower" levels by offering "protection" from the exigencies of the higher-level games. It's one thing to have such special conditions for the under-50 or under-100 masterpoint games, but "except for stand alone Flight A events" means special conditions for under-1500 or under-2000 games, which is absurd. If we are to restore the health of the game in North America, we need to find ways of encouraging the intermediate-level players to "play up", which will ultimately make it easier for them to transition into the "big games". Actions like this, by encouraging differences between the conditions at the lower and higher levels, discourage them from participating in games that don't afford them the special conditions they're used to, and make it harder to make the transition, which means that ultimately fewer players will choose to do so. A number of years ago my wife and her regular partner were at an NABC. They each had a bit less than 1000 master points. One particular day's calendar was a "masters' pairs" arrangement (no longer used at NABCs) with games for 0-300, 300-1500 and 1500+. They approached the entry desk and explained that they wanted to request special dispensation to enter the 1500+ game -- they felt that they had come to the NABC to play with the "big boys", and didn't want to be denied the opportunity to do so. The TD at the entry desk carried their request to the DIC. When he asked the DIC if they could be permitted to enter the top event, the DIC's immediate reaction (which my wife overheard) was a very surprised "Why on Earth would they want to?" (they were eventually allowed to). It's that kind of thinking that should concern us. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 23:00:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AD08E08878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:00:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AD02t08874 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:00:02 +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 IAA25395 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA08399 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:59:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008101259.IAA08399@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or > her own convention card. Won't L80E allow what the BoD wants? (Mind you, I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad idea, only that they can do it if they want.) Whether it's legal or not, in individual events, the ACBL already allows players to look at their own and at partner's convention card. What do other SO's do? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 23:06:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AD69n08890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:06:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AD5vt08886 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:05:59 +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 GAA28038; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:06:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Eric Landau" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:06:44 -0400 Message-ID: <000801c002cb$d4ed1de0$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810083700.00b478b0@pop.cais.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 My question is quite simple What is the difference between a convention card and external aids to memory. Pass this ruling and convention cards will quickly morph into crip sheets -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOZKo4yGkJ7YU62vZEQJIQACg6AH0uAh9TOtBgPPHKVnGdAPSq44AoL5/ 9gQvElUBV5uvXJwctzhDKgcv =DBOE -----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 Aug 10 23:10:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ADAnH08903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:10:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7ADAet08899 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:10:41 +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 e7ADBwm31248 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:11:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810090100.00b48790@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:13:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Pinochle Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Earlier I wrote: > At 01:15 PM 8/8/00, Todd wrote: > > I find it hard to demonstrate this without going to the absurd. In > pinochle there's a rule that you must play a higher card than what's on the > table when the trick comes around to you if you can legally do so. It's > fair, but far outside the nature of bridge. > >> JFTR, that's not correct. The rule in pinochle is that if a trick has >> already been trumped, you must overtrump if you can legally do so. But you >> are always allowed to play low in the suit led. Mike Kopera has graciously corrected me. This was the way I learned the game, but apparently the rule as Todd cites it is a widely accepted one. Pinochle does not have an official rule-making body or lawbook, and rules can vary drastically between times and/or locales. When I moved to Rochester in 1962, I discovered that pinochle there was a four-handed partnership game bearing little resemblance to the three-handed "cutthroat" game I had learned in New York City. Indeed, Mike wrote "you are required to play a higher card if possible (higher even than your partner's)", so it may well be that I had the three-handed game in mind, while Todd and Mike were referring to the partnership form. Further discussion should probably be moved to (a hypothetical) PLML. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 10 23:39:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ADdWg08944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:39:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7ADdOt08940 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:39:25 +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 e7ADdnP47645 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:39:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:41:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:53 PM 8/9/00, richard wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >[big snip] > >"But that's a fine theoretical distinction, and in real life "I take it as" >is common enough that it seems a bit churlish to object to the >mis-phrasing." > >I agree that the phrase, "We have not discussed it, but I am taking it as >..." is unfortunately common. However, if there is truly no agreement, >what Partner A announces as their interpretation of an ambiguous call or >play provides UI to Partner B. > >One reason the Australian Bridge Federation prohibits alerts above 3NT is >to prevent UI being transmitted on whether an ambiguous 4C bid is being >*taken as* Gerber. As we've seen repeatedly, there is an ongoing tension between giving MI and giving UI in situations where one or the other is inevitable. "I am taking it as..." certainly gives UI, but a complete and proper (at least for an "anti-HdW school" partisan) explanation in such cases (e.g. "We have no explicit agreement, but the usual practice in our club is...") also gives UI, and restricts partner's actions to the same degree; he must, in either case, continue on the assumption that you have treated his call as whatever he thought it was when he made it, subject to L16A. It is an unfortunate fact of life that when we are required to disclose our partnership understanding about a call in a case where we don't have an explicit, unambiguous agreement which is fully understood by both partners, we are trapped. We either give a full and complete explanation, standing ready to take the consequences of the resulting UI situation, or we follow the "HdW school", provide no UI, and stand ready to take the consequences of the resulting MI situation. As my original reply demonstrates, I'm an "anti-HdW school" adherent myself, but there is merit in Herman's position as well. I see no merit, however, in the notion, strongly supported by some (although, it seems, few if any on BLML) that we could or should solve this problem by turning the lack an explicit, unambiguous agreement which is fully understood by both partners into a prima facie infraction. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 00:04:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AE3ZJ08978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:03:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AE3St08974 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:03:29 +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 e7AE3q108861 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:03:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810094703.00b47470@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:06:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: References: <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:48 PM 8/9/00, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > >"(a) A player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertant call only > >if he indicates immediately, without pause, that his original call was > >inadvertant. If legal, his last call stands... > > This may be simpler, but I feel it will be unacceptable to the >majority of bridge players who are now used to bidding boxes. People >who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to change it >is they do so immediately - and it is not possible to do it immediately >until you know you have taken the wrong card out. "People who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to change it if they do so immediately"; that is 100% accurate. But the idea that they may change it after a significant delay (even when they realize for the first time that it was inadvertent) is counter-intuitive, and must be learned. It took three separate occurrences of my asking my wife why she made some apparently ridiculous bid, her replying "I pulled the wrong bid card, but by the time I noticed I assumed it was too late to do anything", and my attempting to educate her on the subtlety of L25A, before she learned that she should attempt to correct an inadvertent call as soon as she notices it, even if some time may have passed. IMO players would be more intuitively comfortable than they are now with a law that provided for immediate corrections only. I recognize that current interpretations of L25A are deliberately "loose" in order to to ease the transition from spoken bidding to bidding boxes, and that tightening things up would be unacceptable to too many players right now in 2000. But I believe (or at least hope) that the vast majority of those players will have overcome the difficulties of that transition by 2005. > >The main drawback is that it would not have protected the poor lady who, in > >a game I was directing a while back, tried to pull a card from her bid box, > >had a dozen or so bid cards come flying out on to the floor, immediately > >went under the table to gather up the mess, and then, as soon as she came > >up for air, noticed that the card that actually wound up on the table was > >not her intended call, despite the fact that everyone at the table agreed > >that the inadvertant nature of her call was obvious from the fact that she > >attempted to correct it the instant she noticed what it was. But I believe > >we should be willing to pay that particular price for the resulting > >simplicity and clarity of "immediately, without pause". > > The main drawback is nothing of the sort. That situation is rare. >The main drawback is the far more common situation where a player does >not look at the card as he takes it out. Once he looks at it you will >cry "Foul, there has been a Pause!". And the solution is to work to eliminate the "far more common situation". Tim has given us the blueprint for doing so: At 06:15 AM 8/9/00, twm wrote: >However, a regulation like "In using the bidding box you should select >the bid you wish to make, remove it from the bidding box and check the >face. If, at this stage you realise the card is not the one you >intend to play you should make the table aware of the problem and take >the time you need to correct it. Otherwise place the card neatly on >the table in front of you and release it. Once you have released the >card Law25 will no longer apply and the call may not be changed." >would be reasonably easy for everyone. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 00:14:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AEEY008997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:14:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AEETt08993 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:14:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa395266 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:12:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-125.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.125]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Stoopendus-MailRouter V2.9 9/9759904); 11 Aug 2000 00:12:30 Message-ID: <017501c00339$0b8293e0$29de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:07:48 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote (a week ago; sorry, a virus called PrettyPark wiped my computer out for a week): > >+=+ Convention cards for Maastricht >are showing up with one or two Brown >conventions that may not be played >in the round robin. Examples : > >3*=pre-empt in either minor >3*=pre-empt in either major >2NT=pre-empt in either minor or > strong in both minors >2*=two suiter excluding Spades > which is or could be weak >2*= 6-11 any two-suiter >2*= 5/4 major/minor which is > BS if it could be less > than an average hand....+=+ Some others: 3D = any solid suit, no outside stoppers (played by 3 of the 15 European pairs whose CC's I've seen so far) 3S = any solid suit and outside stop. Will Maastricht be like Lille, where the Systems Desk was (understandably) closed down? Should the players right now be planning their defences against these gadgets which are on opponents' CCs? Or are such BSCs likely (or certain) to be banned in the Round Robin? Or will countries like Chinese Taipei, who explain on their CC that they will switch to Weak Twos because their BSCs are banned in the Round Robin, be disadvantaged for "doing the right thing"? 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 Fri Aug 11 00:15:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AEFYA09012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:15:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AEFSt09008 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:15:19 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:15:16 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] > Sent: 10. August 2000 16:00 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... > > > > From: Michael Farebrother > > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to > refer to his or > > her own convention card. > > Won't L80E allow what the BoD wants? (Mind you, I'm not > saying whether > this is a good or bad idea, only that they can do it if they want.) > > Whether it's legal or not, in individual events, the ACBL already > allows players to look at their own and at partner's convention card. > What do other SO's do? In Poland in individual events you are allowed to look at your opponents' card which happens to be identical with yours. :) If two players forming a regular partnership are to play a board or two together then either they are allowed to use a system they play regularly or they are not; depends on the tournament. If they are then they are not allowed to look at their own convention cards. And only in the case of a regular partnership playing their own system alerting is permitted and required. Otherwise alerting in individual tournaments is banned. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 00:23:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AENGG09026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:23:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AEN5t09021 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:23:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13MtEZ-0004Xh-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:23:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:58:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> <002c01c0029a$6bff81a0$0f5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002c01c0029a$6bff81a0$0f5408c3@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: >+=+ I referred to L25 as a whole; David >wants to treat it like the curate's egg - >"good in parts". However, when it goes >on the stocks for a refit the WBFLC >will need to look at the whole and >decide how it wants it to work. Aaaah - now that is a pure semantic argument, but with no particular logic! There is no reason because of numbering to say "We must deal with L25A because L25B is a mess". To decide to straighten out Laws that can stand alone solely because of the numbering system is not the way to decide what to do! For example, the infamous misplaced L17D, which has real problems apart from being in the wrong place. I trust that this will be sorted out in 2005. But that does not mean that L17B needs sorting out. > We may even clear up the little >assumptions that are made where >the law is not so clear about them Well, despite the arguments in this thread, assertions made have not made it clear to me that L25A has any such problems. Ok, you tell me that I should read it again without pre-conceptions and a fresh approach: what you will not allow is that I have done so, and seen none of the problems manufactured on this thread. -------- Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ On blml we are not trying to control >anything. The responsibility for that lies >elsewhere. The people who read BLML are trying to control a game, thanks very much. > We have a forum for discussion >which is useful at times for casting light >on situations existing under the laws and, >distasteful as it may be to the confident >views of a Tournament Director who has >a set view, the first question to be asked >is always "Is this right?" Fine. But what you do not seem to accept is that some of us have done this, and then still finished with an unaltered view. There are parts of the Law that need some interpretation, and Law 25A has been interpreted consistently around the world. Now this thread challenges some of that interpretation, but it does so in an unconvincing fashion. when I have explained the normal thinking on BLML posters have not said "That is wrong because ..." but have expressed different views about things I do not understand how a call is not a call if it was not intended as a call or some such. > The second question should be >"where is the official English version of >the law? - let's have another look at it." >After all, it was David, amongst others, >who once was so strong in saying that we >must deal with the laws as they are >written. (The only reason to go to the >laws in a local language should be to >see if the translation is accurate, and >this is perhaps better done when we >are clear what the master text says.) So, we have done that as well, having another look at the actual wording. It should not be considered automatic that the current approach is wrong - that is the anarchist approach. > Occasionally something comes up >that will be worthy of attention where >authority resides and, at present anyway, >it may get noted with this in mind. That >is a major benefit of blml. Maybe - but it is not a benefit of BLML when a Law is working well in the game and BLML throws doubt on that working. L25A works well: L25B does not. That is no reason for destroying our approach to L25A by either changing the Law or changing our interpretation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 11 00:23:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AENSa09035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AENIt09027 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:23:19 +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 13MtEg-0004Xk-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:23:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:57:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] alert not seen? References: <001701c00215$3b557940$f4033dd4@default> <3.0.6.32.20000810121304.008c4950@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000810121304.008c4950@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 17:17 9/08/00 +0200, Ben Schelen wrote: >> In the Netherlands there is a hypothetical case. I do hope it is not an >>old subject. South 1NTa South is still studying has >>cards and and north: a. KNOWS that south has not seen it. What can he do? >>1. Can he summon the director because the sloppy alert is an irregularity? >>2. Or should he wait until it is his turn to bid sothat he can ask for a >>rebid? Violation of Law 73B? 3. Or at his turn to bid asks for an >>explanation of the alert? Violation of Law 73B? 4. Or at his turn to bid >>just asks west: "did you alert?" Violation of Law 73B? 3. and 4 south >>can ask the TD for an application of Law 21. b. north SUSPECT that south >>has not seen it. 3. and 4. > >AG : I would use 3 : ask for an explanation. Isn't it the normal procedure ? >Since I am not allowed to take advantage of the fact that partner didn't >ask, the fact that I know why he didn't ask is irrelevant. >And opponaents might hardly complain that I ask about an alerted rebid. Who cares what the oppos think or do? In ethical matters the important thing is to look after your own ethics, and you are not permitted to ask questions for partner's benefit, because that is communicating with him in an illegal fashion. 2, 3 and 4 are illegal because they communicate. He should do 1 or 5. 1 Call the TD and say that there has been an infraction, a sloppy alert. 5 Wait until the end of the hand and then call the TD and ask for an adjusted score because of misinformation due to a sloppy alert. I advise 1 myself. If partner has seen it, it makes no difference. But it is the responsibility of alerter to make sure his oppos see the alert. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 11 01:05:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AF4dZ09084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:04:39 +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-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 e7AF4Xt09080 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:04:34 +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 13Mtsh-000JlY-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:04:29 +0100 Message-ID: <6C3fB2ARIsk5Ew6Z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:54:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... References: <200008101259.IAA08399@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200008101259.IAA08399@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Michael Farebrother >> the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its >> application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a >> player participating in any game below the level of Regional >> Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or >> her own convention card. > >Won't L80E allow what the BoD wants? (Mind you, I'm not saying whether >this is a good or bad idea, only that they can do it if they want.) > >Whether it's legal or not, in individual events, the ACBL already >allows players to look at their own and at partner's convention card. >What do other SO's do? Restrict system very much in individuals. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 11 01:05:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AF4jD09088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:04:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AF4Xt09079 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:04:34 +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 13Mtsh-000JlX-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3yvcNwAyEsk5Ew40@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:50:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> <000301bffff0$e555c2a0$cab4f1c3@kooijman> <001501c00047$cdf5f420$385908c3@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20000808233258.00ab7100@pop.ihug.com.au> <003101c00182$883dc660$915608c3@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20000810094703.00b47470@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810094703.00b47470@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 08:48 PM 8/9/00, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >"(a) A player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertant call only >> >if he indicates immediately, without pause, that his original call was >> >inadvertant. If legal, his last call stands... >> >> This may be simpler, but I feel it will be unacceptable to the >>majority of bridge players who are now used to bidding boxes. People >>who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to change it >>is they do so immediately - and it is not possible to do it immediately >>until you know you have taken the wrong card out. > >"People who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to >change it if they do so immediately"; that is 100% accurate. But the idea >that they may change it after a significant delay (even when they realize >for the first time that it was inadvertent) is counter-intuitive, and must >be learned. It took three separate occurrences of my asking my wife why >she made some apparently ridiculous bid, her replying "I pulled the wrong >bid card, but by the time I noticed I assumed it was too late to do >anything", and my attempting to educate her on the subtlety of L25A, before >she learned that she should attempt to correct an inadvertent call as soon >as she notices it, even if some time may have passed. IMO players would be >more intuitively comfortable than they are now with a law that provided for >immediate corrections only. No, "would have been", not "would be". I would be happy if we had never had this Law, but now we have had it for many years, and now its use has become commonplace, I do not think we are going to make the average player happier by going backwards. Note that my disagreement with David B's proposal of no changes whatever is not that I think it wrong, but i think it too late to introduce now. Ok, maybe it is easier in England, which seems to play bridge in a more comfortable way, and where changes of unintended call are frequent and no director gets called, but I really feel you will reduce comfort by not allowing such a change. Even your wife has now learnt - so what will she think if you now change it? [s] >> The main drawback is nothing of the sort. That situation is rare. >>The main drawback is the far more common situation where a player does >>not look at the card as he takes it out. Once he looks at it you will >>cry "Foul, there has been a Pause!". > >And the solution is to work to eliminate the "far more common >situation". Tim has given us the blueprint for doing so: If people did not make mistakes of any sort we would have little need for Laws, TDs and 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 02:38:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AGaOa09239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:36:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AGaHt09235 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:36:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive40e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.14]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA09302; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:36:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005d01c002e9$5f7f7d00$0e10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:38:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I do NOT ask you >to agree, nor anyone, and I make neither claim nor >concession to a proprietary monopoly of canonical truth. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But you may well claim a distictive expertise in erudite multisyllabic commentary. :-)Sometimes I pity those on the list who are not native speakers of English (including many of us Americans and a good number in your islands) as they wade through some of the unfamiliar vocabulary, rife with subtle connotations, and attempt to penetrate to what often is a well expressed point if only in can be understood. Whilst our two nations are often thought to be divided by a common language, I can only imagine how the diplomacy involved in agreeing on any worldwide standard must be hampered by imperfect translation or understanding of the words we use to express many fine ideas. So often our clear insightful comments are another's impenetrable prose, bereft of clarity, with ideas emerging murkily if at all. It is not easy to argue a complex issue when the parties do not fully understand each other. I for one think you have raised some interesting issues in this thread, as have others. While I think in the instant case I am quite willing to grant that DWS' question as posed (allowing 25A change of call then withdrawal of LHO's call) conforms to what actually happens in the ACBL, there is some considerable merit to your argument that the accepted way of ruling this case may be invalid. Since as a forum we must explore the weaknesses and unclear areas of the laws, this may be a useful debate, leading to any ultimate change in Law 25. I must admit I am coming very close to liking the DALB solution though I would word it "Except as explicitly provided elsewhere in these laws, a call once made may not be changed." If I pull a wrong card in the play, I may not withdraw it unless it is an unlawful play. Why should bidding be different, even if tradition had allowed correction of a misspeak but not a misplay? If this is too harsh, we could append as follows "...may not be changed except with the consent of the opponents." Then you can still let 94 year old Aunt Susie off the hook at the club, since that is what will actually happen even if the law does NOT permit it. An even better change would be to require all clubs to have one or more Wendy's. That could do more to increase participation by young men than anything else I can think of. Regards, 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 Fri Aug 11 02:51:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AGoqh09261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:50:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AGokt09257 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:50:46 +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 MAA06564 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:50:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA10711 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:50:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:50:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008101650.MAA10711@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com > In Poland in individual events you are allowed to look at your > opponents' card which happens to be identical with yours. :) Thanks, Konrad. So everyone is required to play the same system in an individual? In the games I've seen in North America, you and your partner of the moment can play whatever you can manage to agree on in the (short) time available. (At least if "whatever" is within the General Convention Chart.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 03:00:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AH0WH09293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 03:00:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AH0Pt09289 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 03:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d316.iae.nl [212.61.5.62]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E51C120F05 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:00:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00d201c002ec$cc316320$d6033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] is a ban upon ES feasible? Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:01:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C002FD.6AB370A0" 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_00CD_01C002FD.6AB370A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I do not like to flutter the dovecots but: Suppose the authorities institude a speed limit on a highway for reasons = of safety and they do not check the speed of the cars the majority of = drivers will not follow this regulation. So the authorities have to take = measures otherwise they make themselves ridiculous. They had better done = and omit it. On BLML the pros and cons in relation to certain aspects of ES have been = discussed. There was hardly a reference to the job of the TD. If a SO = decides to ban ES the starting- point is that the players are expected = to act on it, according to the nature of the game. But in a big = tournement the pairs are ripe and unripe.The sense of ES is to make it = difficult to the declarer. But what happens if declarer has not the = skill of an average player? BLML denominates such a player a LOL or a = LOM. Such a player can ascertain a hesitation during the auction or = play, can ascertain a strange call (psyche,a BSC or a HUM). Such a = player can summon the TD at the table or later when it appears during a = discussion at the end of the session and before the correction period = expires. However such a player cannot remember the card play later. That means that the OPPs of a weak pair can easily violate the ban and = communicate via ES. What is the oppertunity that such a conduct is = discovered ? Remember the problems with other cheating methods! The thesis of this poster is: A ban upon ES is in practice hardly = feasible because the SO has the only opportunity than to rely on the = ethics of the players. ------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C002FD.6AB370A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I do not like to flutter the dovecots but:

Suppose the authorities institude a speed limit on a highway for = reasons of=20 safety and they do not check the speed of the cars the majority of = drivers will=20 not follow this regulation. So the authorities have to take measures = otherwise=20 they make themselves ridiculous. They had better done and omit it.

On BLML the pros and cons in relation to certain aspects of ES have = been=20 discussed. There was hardly a reference to the job of the TD. If a SO = decides to=20 ban ES the starting- point is that the players are expected to act on = it,=20 according to the nature of the game. But in a big tournement the pairs = are ripe=20 and unripe.The sense of ES is to make it difficult to the declarer. But = what=20 happens if declarer has not the skill of an average player? BLML = denominates=20 such a player a LOL or a LOM. Such a player can ascertain a hesitation = during=20 the auction or play, can ascertain a strange call (psyche,a BSC or a = HUM). Such=20 a player can summon the TD at the table or later when it appears during = a=20 discussion at the end of the session and before the correction period = expires.=20 However such a player cannot remember the card play later.

That means that the OPPs of a weak pair can easily violate the ban = and=20 communicate via ES. What is the oppertunity that such a conduct is = discovered ?=20 Remember the problems with other cheating methods!

The thesis of this poster is: A ban upon ES is in practice hardly = feasible=20 because the SO has the only  opportunity than to rely on the ethics = of the=20 players.

------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01C002FD.6AB370A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 03:30:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AHUDd09323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 03:30:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7AHU4t09319 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 03:30:05 +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 13Mw9Y-0002CD-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:30:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:46:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... 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: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> Moved that: >> >> the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its >> application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a >> player participating in any game below the level of Regional >> Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to >> his or her own convention card. >> I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or >> grateful. >This covers, one would assume, games for novices or people who want to >be treated like novices. Provided those who want to play proper >bridge can get a real game it shouldn't cause a problem should it. What about "No mechanical aids to memory"? Suppose I hold my cc on my palm-top. Can I now run a double dummy simulation to find out my best action too? This sort of nonsense would almost persuade me to go along to the Wood and play against Tim for GBP3-00/100. At least that's a game of skill rather than a game for the player who can construct the best cheat- sheet. cheers john > >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/ -- 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 Fri Aug 11 07:31:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ALV1P09468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:31:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from [208.1.218.2] ([208.1.218.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7ALUst09464 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:30:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from no.name.available by [208.1.218.2] via smtpd (for rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) with SMTP; 10 Aug 2000 21:35:52 UT Received: from ehc.edu (OEMWORKGROUP [172.16.224.109]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id QMX33X6A; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:29:34 -0400 Message-ID: <39931EE1.8A838742@ehc.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:30:09 -0400 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... References: <200008101259.IAA08399@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Michael Farebrother > > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or > > her own convention card. > > Won't L80E allow what the BoD wants? (Mind you, I'm not saying whether > this is a good or bad idea, only that they can do it if they want.) > > Whether it's legal or not, in individual events, the ACBL already > allows players to look at their own and at partner's convention card. The examples listed in L80E aren't on the same level as the CC proposition; written bidding and bidding boxes can be seen as "memory aides," but one can review the bidding. Nothing gained there. As a lurker and as someone with 120 masterpoints (I haven't had time for tournaments in about two years), I am deeply insulted that the ACBL thinks that my club's games would be improved by this action. And what about the North American Open Pairs, flights B and C? Does this regulation mean that the club and unit qualifying rounds will have regulations not applying to the NABC finals? What nonsense. John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | | fight world hunger -- visit http://www.thehungersite.com daily | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 07:32:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ALWUa09480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:32:30 +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 e7ALWNt09476 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:32:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.59] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13MzvN-0002uo-00; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:31:37 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c00312$61f33f80$3b5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Craig Senior" , "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <005d01c002e9$5f7f7d00$0e10f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: testing the coin, was [BLML] L25A Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:31:06 +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: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > I do NOT ask you > >to agree, nor anyone, and I make neither claim nor > >concession to a proprietary monopoly of canonical truth. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But you may well claim a distinctive expertise in erudite multisyllabic > commentary. :-)Sometimes I pity those on the list who are not native > speakers of English (including many of us Americans and a good number in > your islands) as they wade through some of the unfamiliar vocabulary, rife > with subtle connotations, and attempt to penetrate to what often is a well > expressed point if only in can be understood. Whilst our two nations are > often thought to be divided by a common language, I can only imagine how the > diplomacy involved in agreeing on any worldwide standard must be hampered by > imperfect translation or understanding of the words we use to express many > fine ideas. > +=+ In matters of diplomacy the English have always used French, a mother tongue delightfully convenient for the expression of inexactitudes. We reserve our second language for the commerce of life. +=+ :-)) > > So often our clear insightful comments are another's > impenetrable prose, bereft of clarity, with ideas emerging murkily if at > all. It is not easy to argue a complex issue when the parties do not fully > understand each other. > +=+ But please do not suppose that I am unaware of it. I have attempted le mot juste all my life - I was bookish as a schoolboy and it came maybe partly with reading every volume in a large school library. Sadly I think you have to bear with me this far on - although I do try to vary my language in repeating myself ad nauseam. +=+ > > I for one think you have raised some interesting issues in this thread, as > have others. While I think in the instant case I am quite willing to grant > that DWS' question as posed (allowing 25A change of call then withdrawal of > LHO's call) conforms to what actually happens in the ACBL, there is some > considerable merit to your argument that the accepted way of ruling this > case may be invalid. Since as a forum we must explore the weaknesses and > unclear areas of the laws, this may be a useful debate, leading to any > ultimate change in Law 25. > +=+ It is not that I wish merely to disagree with whatever practice develops; but where the practice is desirable I want it to be within the prescription of the law, and I do not happen to think it merely takes a gloss from one of us to achieve this. Lurking in my mind is the knowledge that an appeals committee must first of all apply the law, and behind this again lurks the knowledge that possibilities for appeals to higher judgement are never unthinkable. We have to be seen to act justly and within our own rules. +=+ > I must admit I am coming very close to liking the DALB solution though I > would word it "Except as explicitly provided elsewhere in these laws, a call > once made may not be changed." If I pull a wrong card in the play, I may not > withdraw it unless it is an unlawful play. Why should bidding be different, > even if tradition had allowed correction of a misspeak but not a misplay? If > this is too harsh, we could append as follows "...may not be changed except > with the consent of the opponents." Then you can still let 94 year old Aunt > Susie off the hook at the club, since that is what will actually happen even > if the law does NOT permit it. > +=+ I have a great respect for Burn. He is highly intelligent (usually understands what I say and disagrees with it in such a civil manner). As for his idea, I think I am very close to agreement; I would want a safety net for one or two situations. And, as for Law 25B, I agree with the general view that it is a total abomination - I think both Kojak and I regret having given in without a longer fight - but I do not think we can just remove 25B and leave L25A untouched. We need to say exactly what we intend, if this is ever a possibility. ~ 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 Aug 11 08:02:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7AM2AZ09520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:02:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7AM23t09516 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:02:04 +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 SAA18292 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA13815 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:02:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008102202.SAA13815@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 > From: David Stevenson > What are we trying to > do on BLML, have a deep semantic argument [which I am quite sure I would > lose] or trying to control a game of bridge? As regular BLML readers know (perhaps all too well), I am a great lover of deep semantic arguments. In spite of that, I completely agree with David S. on the use of L25A and then 21B when necessary. (I am not so certain that he would lose a deep semantic argument, BTW.) > Eric Landau wrote: > > >"(a) A player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertant call only > >if he indicates immediately, without pause, that his original call was > >inadvertant. If legal, his last call stands... > > This may be simpler, but I feel it will be unacceptable to the > majority of bridge players who are now used to bidding boxes. People > who take out the wrong card believe that they have a right to change it > is they do so immediately - and it is not possible to do it immediately > until you know you have taken the wrong card out. I am not so sure a change would be unacceptable. Why not make the rule similar to that for play of declarer's card? Players accept that, and if the change were announced with great fanfare as part of a general update of the laws, why wouldn't the players go along? One could even justify it as part of the "make bridge a sport" movement. In fact, the parallel appeals to me: same rule for spoken call as for call of card from dummy; same rule for bidding box as for play of declarer's card. Is that really so bad? Players would have a reasonable time to correct mechanical mistakes, but at some moment the call is "made," and that is that. Ah, well, a good topic for 2007 (or 2005 or whenever). The LC will want to consider whether to bring bidding box rules into the Laws or continue to leave them to regulation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 09:32:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ANVf509581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:31:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7ANVYt09577 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:31:35 +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 13N1nN-0000Si-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:31:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:27:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: testing the coin, was [BLML] L25A References: <005d01c002e9$5f7f7d00$0e10f7a5@oemcomputer> <000b01c00312$61f33f80$3b5908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000b01c00312$61f33f80$3b5908c3@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 <000b01c00312$61f33f80$3b5908c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> >+=+ I have a great respect for Burn. He is highly intelligent (usually > understands what I say and disagrees with it in such a civil manner). > As for his idea, I think I am very close to agreement; I would want a >safety net for one or two situations. And, as for Law 25B, I agree with >the general view that it is a total abomination - I think both Kojak >and I regret having given in without a longer fight - but I do not >think we can just remove 25B and leave L25A untouched. We need >to say exactly what we intend, if this is ever a possibility. > ~ Grattan ~ >+=+ with regard to the play of the cards L45C3 permits re-arrangement. If that is what had been intended why doesn't L25A say something similar. Agreed the Laws per se do not cater for use of bidding boxes but it is in practice totally differently structured. I remain extremely sceptical about Grattan's interpretation of L25A (despite the fact he drafted it). cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 10:18:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B0Hsa09633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:17:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7B0Hlt09629 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:17:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.170] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13N2Vy-0007QS-00; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:17:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c00329$9113a4a0$aa5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <017501c00339$0b8293e0$29de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:16:17 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 3:07 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > Grattan Endicott wrote (a week ago; sorry, a virus > called PrettyPark wiped my computer out for a week): > > > >+=+ Convention cards for Maastricht > >are showing up with one or two Brown > >conventions that may not be played > >in the round robin. Examples : > > > >3*=pre-empt in either minor > >3*=pre-empt in either major > >2NT=pre-empt in either minor or > > strong in both minors > >2*=two suiter excluding Spades > > which is or could be weak > >2*= 6-11 any two-suiter > >2*= 5/4 major/minor which is > > BS if it could be less > > than an average hand....+=+ > > > Some others: > 3D = any solid suit, no outside stoppers (played by 3 of > the 15 European pairs whose CC's I've seen so far) > 3S = any solid suit and outside stop. > +=+ Why would you say these are hands of less than average strength? BS only applies where there are 'weak' possibilities for the bid. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Will Maastricht be like Lille, where the Systems Desk > was (understandably) closed down? > +=+ This question is in other hands than mine. However, I sense a determination to overcome the inherent difficulties in coping with convention card problems in an event like an Olympiad. Kojak will be giving his instructions to the Tournament Directors; John Wignall will be instructing the Systems Desk; Anna Gudge has moved mountains to get the CCs on air; responsibility for what is on CCs rests with the players - anything that has been spotted is not the result of a review process, but has been mentioned to help players not to run into a wall in Maastricht. +=+ > > Should the players right now be planning their defences > against these gadgets which are on opponents' CCs? > Or are such BSCs likely (or certain) to be banned in the > Round Robin? > +=+ I am not expecting these to be banned, certainly not if a solid suit is defined as A K Q J x x - 'weak' is 'a hand of less than average strength in HCP'. It may need a decision if a pair plays it as A K Q x x x x (my personal unofficial thought being that the deviation is minuscule and that it would be somewhat fastidious or overnice to make a distinction - Anna may know whether we have been give a steer - or :-) ) even an infallible Bull.) ~ 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 Aug 11 10:55:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B0smc09663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:54:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from woodyjr.wcnet.org (woodyjr.wcnet.org [205.133.170.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7B0sft09659 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:54:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from woody.wcnet.org (woody [205.133.171.1]) by woodyjr.wcnet.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e7B0sXX06664; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:54:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by woody.wcnet.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e7B0sS415487; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:54:23 -0400 (EDT) From: David Grabiner To: blml@farebrother.cx cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... In-Reply-To: <200008092246.SAA27386@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 Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Michael Farebrother wrote: > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or > her own convention card. Note the meaning of "stand-alone." This means that sectional stratified games will allow players to look at their cards, and possibly even sectional open/men's/women's pairs if there is no Flight B game and everyone is in the same field. Flight A pick-up pairs in such games will be able to play complicated agreements with no fear of forgetting them. I think the ACBL is reacting to the fact that looking at cards happens anyway. It may also create an incentive for players to actually have thier cards on the table, but there are better waysto deal with that problem. And I agree that Flight B players should not be allowed to play a game which will not be allowed at the higher levels. The pre-1987 Laws were better in this respect, at least unofficially allowing all players to look. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 13:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B3Dlk09760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7B3Det09756 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054lgb.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.86.11]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA07597 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000810231317.013b7200@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:13:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... 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 11:40 AM 8/10/2000 +0100, Tim wrote: >In-Reply-To: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> Moved that: >> >> the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its >> application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a >> player participating in any game below the level of Regional >> Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to >> his or her own convention card. >> I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or >> grateful. >This covers, one would assume, games for novices or people who want to >be treated like novices. Provided those who want to play proper >bridge can get a real game it shouldn't cause a problem should it. > Yes and no. With the proliferation of stratified events, the occurrence of "stand alone Flight A events" decreases, so that it indeed it may not be possible, in many instances, to find a "real game". Which _is_ a problem, as you indirectly suggest. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 13:24:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B3Ol809775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:24:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7B3Oht09771 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:24:43 +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 NAA07421 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:21:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:21:34 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3 (Intl)) with SMTP id 2000081113185099:8843 ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:18:50 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A256938.0012AE98 ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:24:03 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256938.0012AD0D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:23:54 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Implicit agreements Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/08/2000 01:18:51 PM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/08/2000 01:18:52 PM, Serialize complete at 11/08/2000 01:18:52 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hypothetical: You are partnering a stranger, and have had no time to discuss system. On the first board pard opens 1H, and RHO asks, "Do you play 4 card or 5 card majors?" Question one: If playing in Britain, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as a 4 card major." Question two: If playing in the USA, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as a 5 card major." Question three: If playing in New Zealand, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as a fert?" Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au *************************** Important Warning! *************************** This electronic communication (including any attached files) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is only intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have permission to read, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or retain any part of this communication or its attachments in any form. If this e-mail was sent to you by mistake, please take the time to notify the sender so that they can identify the problem and avoid any more mistakes in sending e-mail to you. The unauthorised use of information contained in this communication or its attachments may result in legal action against any person who uses 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 Fri Aug 11 14:49:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B4mdI09828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:48:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7B4mZt09824 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:48:35 +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 e7B4mYK18245 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:48:34 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:48:34 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements In-Reply-To: <4A256938.0012AD0D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Hypothetical: You are partnering a stranger, and have had no time to > discuss system. On the first board pard opens 1H, and RHO asks, "Do you > play 4 card or 5 card majors?" The correct answer is "Yes" irrespective of partner or country :-) > Question one: If playing in Britain, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am > taking it as a 4 card major." "Undiscussed" > Question two: If playing in the USA, do you announce, "Undiscussed, > but I am taking it as a 5 card major." "Undiscussed" > Question three: If playing in New Zealand, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I > am taking it as a fert?" "Undiscussed. You can see that my partner is Michael Ware, can't you?" 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 Fri Aug 11 17:09:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B78Qw09918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:08:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7B78Jt09914 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:08:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-143.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.143]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1988936B81 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:09:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c00361$e01111e0$8fb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: Subject: [BLML] 25A in pratice Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:00:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C00372.9B727AE0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C00372.9B727AE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You don't believe it. Yesterday evening in my local weekly bridgeclub, = after bridge a good player asked me what should be done when the = following happens (which had happened in the first round): Dealer, your right hand opponent puts down the pass card and you open = 1D. Now RHO starts screaming, sorry I pulled the pas card but I meant to = take the stop card. Why are you so fast in making that 1D call? TD = called allowed to change the pass in stop 2NT (the man had 22 points) = and the auction continued pass pass pass. Probably the TD forgot to = explain that the information from the withdrawn 1D bid was authorized = for defenders, because declarer's RHO being on lead didn't dare to = switch to diamonds which costed a trick.=20 I am just there as a player, so no action from my side, though I told = them that the diamond switch was allowed. According to his partner it = was obvious to switch to diamonds anyway. Being back in the adjusted = score department.=20 Last remark on this issue: Yes Grattan, law 16 describes the = possibility to withdraw a call, but wants an infraction for that. And we = were not sure that an infraction occurs when somebody puts down a pass = card thinking he shows the stop card. That is were this discussion = started. Don't tell me this can be considered to be misinformation.=20 ton ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C00372.9B727AE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You don't believe it. Yesterday = evening in my=20 local weekly bridgeclub, after bridge a good player asked me what should = be done=20 when the following happens (which had happened in the first = round):
 
Dealer, your right hand opponent puts down the pass = card and=20 you open 1D. Now RHO starts screaming, sorry I pulled the pas card but I = meant=20 to take the stop card. Why are you so fast in making that 1D call? TD = called=20 allowed to change the pass in stop 2NT (the man had 22 points) and the = auction=20 continued pass pass pass. Probably the TD forgot to explain that the = information=20 from the withdrawn 1D bid was authorized for defenders, because = declarer's RHO=20 being on lead didn't dare to switch to diamonds which costed a=20 trick. 
I am just there as a player, so no action from my = side, though=20 I told them that the diamond switch was allowed. According to his = partner it was=20 obvious to switch to diamonds anyway. Being back in the adjusted score=20 department.
 
 
Last remark on this issue: Yes Grattan,  law 16 = describes=20 the possibility to withdraw a call, but wants an infraction for that. = And we=20 were not sure that an infraction occurs when somebody puts down a pass = card=20 thinking he shows the stop card. That is were this discussion started. = Don't=20 tell me this can be considered to be misinformation.
 
 
ton
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C00372.9B727AE0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 18:12:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B8BrP09970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:11:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7B8Bnt09966 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:11:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma889498 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:12:59 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-33.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.33]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sparking-MailRouter V2.9 7/12343932); 11 Aug 2000 18:12:57 Message-ID: <00b301c003cf$f87b07e0$7ede36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] is a ban upon ES feasible? Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 06:08:10 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C00423.B0CF0E60" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C00423.B0CF0E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In reply to Ben Schelen's post (reprinted at the end): Yes, I think that such a ban is feasible. You might just as well=20 argue that a pair could be out there playing Encrypted Signals=20 but not telling anyone - it might seem that they falsecard a lot=20 and they would get away with it for a while but eventually they should be caught and punished. This should happen because players at the bridge table are expected to call the TD or=20 report such a problem to the Recorder, unlike your motorists who see a speeding car. Your point about the difficulties of enforcing the ban makes more sense in SOs which are=20 prehistoric enough not to have a Recorder. The practicality of a pair deciding "we'll get away with ES=20 against the next pair so we'll play ES for the next two boards" is almost nil IMO. My comments are not intended to support the WBF and NBB bans on ES, but merely to say that I disagree with your analogy. I think that the analogy fails becuse the traffic police are different from the TD - you do not call the police when you see a speeding=20 car. Still, Ben's comments were very interesting to think about. Peter Gill Australia. =20 Ben Schelen wrote: =20 =20 I do not like to flutter the dovecots but: Suppose the authorities institude a speed limit on a highway for = reasons of safety and they do not check the speed of the cars the = majority of drivers will not follow this regulation. So the authorities = have to take measures otherwise they make themselves ridiculous. They = had better done and omit it. On BLML the pros and cons in relation to certain aspects of ES have = been discussed. There was hardly a reference to the job of the TD. If a = SO decides to ban ES the starting- point is that the players are = expected to act on it, according to the nature of the game. But in a big = tournement the pairs are ripe and unripe.The sense of ES is to make it = difficult to the declarer. But what happens if declarer has not the = skill of an average player? BLML denominates such a player a LOL or a = LOM. Such a player can ascertain a hesitation during the auction or = play, can ascertain a strange call (psyche,a BSC or a HUM). Such a = player can summon the TD at the table or later when it appears during a = discussion at the end of the session and before the correction period = expires. However such a player cannot remember the card play later. That means that the OPPs of a weak pair can easily violate the ban = and communicate via ES. What is the oppertunity that such a conduct is = discovered ? Remember the problems with other cheating methods! The thesis of this poster is: A ban upon ES is in practice hardly = feasible because the SO has the only opportunity than to rely on the = ethics of the players. ------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C00423.B0CF0E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In reply to Ben Schelen's post (reprinted at = the=20 end):
 
Yes, I think that = such a ban is=20 feasible. You might just as well
argue that a pair = could be out=20 there playing Encrypted Signals
but not telling = anyone - it might seem that they = falsecard a=20 lot
and they would = get away with it for a while but = eventually=20 they
should = be caught and punished. This = should happen=20 because
players at the = bridge table are = expected to=20 call the TD or
report such a problem to the Recorder, unlike your motorists
who see a speeding car. Your point about the difficulties of
enforcing the ban makes more sense in SOs which are
prehistoric enough not to have a Recorder.
 
The practicality of a = pair deciding=20 "we'll get away with ES
against the next pair = so we'll play=20 ES for the next two boards"
is almost nil=20 IMO.
 
My comments are=20 not intended to support the WBF and NBB
bans on ES, but = merely to say that=20 I disagree with your analogy.
I think = that the=20 analogy fails becuse the traffic police are different
from the TD - you do not call the police when you see a speeding =
car. Still, Ben's comments were very interesting to think = about.
 
Peter = Gill
Australia.  
 
Ben Schelen wrote:

 

I do not like to flutter the dovecots but:

Suppose the authorities institude a speed limit on a highway for = reasons=20 of safety and they do not check the speed of the cars the majority = of=20 drivers will not follow this regulation. So the authorities have to = take=20 measures otherwise they make themselves ridiculous. They had better = done and=20 omit it.

On BLML the pros and cons in relation to certain aspects of ES = have been=20 discussed. There was hardly a reference to the job of the TD. If a = SO=20 decides to ban ES the starting- point is that the players are = expected to=20 act on it, according to the nature of the game. But in a big = tournement the=20 pairs are ripe and unripe.The sense of ES is to make it difficult to = the=20 declarer. But what happens if declarer has not the skill of an = average=20 player? BLML denominates such a player a LOL or a LOM. Such a player = can=20 ascertain a hesitation during the auction or play, can ascertain a = strange=20 call (psyche,a BSC or a HUM). Such a player can summon the TD at the = table=20 or later when it appears during a discussion at the end of the = session and=20 before the correction period expires. However such a player cannot = remember=20 the card play later.

That means that the OPPs of a weak pair can easily violate the = ban and=20 communicate via ES. What is the oppertunity that such a conduct is=20 discovered ? Remember the problems with other cheating methods!

The thesis of this poster is: A ban upon ES is in practice hardly = feasible because the SO has the only  opportunity than to rely = on the=20 ethics of the players.

------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C00423.B0CF0E60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 18:56:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B8uB810001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 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 teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7B8u7t09997 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:56:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka690336 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:54:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-86.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.86]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Critical-MailRouter V2.9 1/2220716); 11 Aug 2000 18:54:23 Message-ID: <00e901c003d5$c23451e0$7ede36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 06:49:37 +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 >Grattan Endicott wrote: >================================= >"So long as a man rides his hobby-horse >peaceably and quietly along the king's highway, >and neither compels you or me to get up behind >him - pray, Sir, what have either you or I to >do with it? " - Tristram Shandy. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - >Peter Gill wrote: >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>+=+ Convention cards for Maastricht >>>are showing up with one or two Brown >>>conventions that may not be played >>>in the round robin. Examples : >>> >>>3*=pre-empt in either minor >>>3*=pre-empt in either major >>>2NT=pre-empt in either minor or >>> strong in both minors >>>2*=two suiter excluding Spades >>> which is or could be weak >>>2*= 6-11 any two-suiter >>>2*= 5/4 major/minor which is >>> BS if it could be less >>> than an average hand....+=+ Peter Gill wrote: >> Some others: >> 3D = any solid suit, no outside stoppers (played by 3 of >> the 15 European pairs whose CC's I've seen so far) >> 3S = any solid suit and outside stop. >> Grattan endicott wrote: >+=+ Why would you say these are hands of >less than average strength? BS only applies where >there are 'weak' possibilities for the bid. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In the case of 3D: Logic. And Definitions. The WBF definition of average hand. And the information on page two of the Liechtenstein and Romanian CCs - on all three CCs the pairs specify AKQxxxx or ARDxxxx on page two of the CC. I agree with you that 3S is not a BSC. Remember that I'm new to this and struggling with it ... despite playing in Lille and Cavendishes and a BB in the 1990s, I had never known what a BSC was until Anna Gudge put it on her website the other day. Yes I know that a hand containing AKQxxxx is not really below average, because I know about "points schmoints" and that HCP are a tool for beginners, but does this give me the right to ignore or mangle the WBF definitions? Peter Gill wrote: >> Should the players right now be planning their defences >> against these gadgets which are on opponents' CCs? >> Or are such BSCs likely (or certain) to be banned in the >> Round Robin? >> Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I am not expecting these to be banned, >certainly not if a solid suit is defined as >A K Q J x x - 'weak' is 'a hand of less than >average strength in HCP'. It may need a >decision if a pair plays it as A K Q x x x x >(my personal unofficial thought being that >the deviation is minuscule and that it would >be somewhat fastidious or overnice to >make a distinction - Anna may know >whether we have been give a steer - >or :-) ) even an infallible Bull.) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ You're joking, aren't you? Or being deliberately abstruse in order to minimise the number of BSCs to remove in Maastricht? The whole world, and indeed the three pairs whoise CCs I happen to have seen, defines a solid suit as AKQxxxx. In the Official Bridge Encyclopedia, "Solid Suit" is defined in many ways, but all their definitions contain the dreaded 9 HCP. If the WBF are (IMO) silly enough to ban BSCs for what most countries regard as the whole Olympiad, then in these days of email, one would hope that before arrival in Maastricht, the relevant countries would have been advised to alter their CCs. Perhaps that's hoping for too much. I know it's not Grattan's area of responsibility, but I think it's better to discuss these things before they erupt into controversies. Do you still think that this destructive, difficult-to-play-against 3D opening is not a BSC, because your personal definition of a solid suit differs from that which the pairs concerned have written on their CCs? Better that I bring this up now than someone later in Maastricht. 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 Fri Aug 11 20:00:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7B9wEB10062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:58:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from d1o993.telia.com (d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7B9w2t10058 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t3o993p68.telia.com [213.64.27.68]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA06653; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:57:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <003a01c0038b$33e8b4c0$981a40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: , Subject: SV: [BLML] Implicit agreements Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:56:06 -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 e7B9wBt10059 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Where are you allowed to tell anyone that you are guessing and what your guess are? Why not just choose to answer either "undiscussed" or "the most likely meaning"(if you are able to identify it)? /Peter >Hypothetical: You are partnering a stranger, and have had no time to discuss >system. On the first board pard opens 1H, and RHO asks, "Do you play 4 card or 5 >card majors?" > >Question one: If playing in Britain, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am >taking it as a 4 card major." > >Question two: If playing in the USA, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am >taking it as a 5 card major." > >Question three: If playing in New Zealand, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I >am taking it as a fert?" > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills >richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > > >*************************** >Important Warning! >*************************** >This electronic communication (including any attached files) may contain >confidential and/or legally privileged information and is only intended for the >use of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended >recipient, you do not have permission to read, use, disseminate, distribute, >copy or retain any part of this communication or its attachments in any form. >If this e-mail was sent to you by mistake, please take the time to notify the >sender so that they can identify the problem and avoid any more mistakes in >sending e-mail to you. The unauthorised use of information contained in this >communication or its attachments may result in legal action against any person >who uses 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 21:01:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BB05R10100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:00:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BAxrt10092 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 20:59:54 +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 MAA05360; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:58:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA29046; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:59:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000811130847.008c1dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:08:47 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements In-Reply-To: <4A256938.0012AD0D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:23 11/08/00 +1000, you wrote: > > >Hypothetical: You are partnering a stranger, and have had no time to discuss >system. On the first board pard opens 1H, and RHO asks, "Do you play 4 card or 5 >card majors?" > >Question one: If playing in Britain, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am >taking it as a 4 card major." > >Question two: If playing in the USA, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am >taking it as a 5 card major." > >Question three: If playing in New Zealand, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I >am taking it as a fert?" AG : no to all three. Just announce 'undiscussed', and the opponents will usually know what you will assume. In Belgium, this will cause several more problems ; for example, the opponents might turn to your partner and ask 'say something', because 5-card majors are more popular among French-speaking and Acol among Dutch-speaking (though not by much). But asking somebody what his/her mother tongue is is not allowed by our laws. Best Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 21:01:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BB1ND10118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:01:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7BB1Et10110 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.140]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15080 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:01:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:03:17 +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] question on question and answer about discarding References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: A very clear and satisfactory answer to this problem, in which he states his position but does not criticise any other one - thank you for that. However : > > As we've seen repeatedly, there is an ongoing tension between giving MI and > giving UI in situations where one or the other is inevitable. "I am taking > it as..." certainly gives UI, but a complete and proper (at least for an > "anti-HdW school" partisan) explanation in such cases (e.g. "We have no > explicit agreement, but the usual practice in our club is...") also gives > UI, and restricts partner's actions to the same degree; he must, in either > case, continue on the assumption that you have treated his call as whatever > he thought it was when he made it, subject to L16A. > > It is an unfortunate fact of life that when we are required to disclose our > partnership understanding about a call in a case where we don't have an > explicit, unambiguous agreement which is fully understood by both partners, > we are trapped. We either give a full and complete explanation, standing > ready to take the consequences of the resulting UI situation, or we follow > the "HdW school", provide no UI, and stand ready to take the consequences > of the resulting MI situation. > Tell me Eric, what MI are you referring to ? The answer "A" as opposed to the answer "I think A" has, IMO, exactly the same value to the opponents. So the MI should be the same. As you also say, both answers provide some form of UI to the partner. Which is why I believe that the only difference between the two positions is the fact that the player has given to his opponents an extra piece of information, AI to them, but to which they are not entitled, namely that there is a piece of doubt. It is for that reason only, that I favour the HDwS. > As my original reply demonstrates, I'm an "anti-HdW school" adherent > myself, but there is merit in Herman's position as well. I see no merit, > however, in the notion, strongly supported by some (although, it seems, few > if any on BLML) that we could or should solve this problem by turning the > lack an explicit, unambiguous agreement which is fully understood by both > partners into a prima facie infraction. > That is indeed a position not supported by any law. -- 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 Aug 11 21:01:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BB1R110119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:01:27 +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 e7BB1Ht10111 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:01:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.140]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15096 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:01:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3992B6E0.B5A33B40@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 16:06:24 +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: [BLML] alert not seen? References: <001701c00215$3b557940$f4033dd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ben Schelen wrote: > > In the Netherlands there is a hypothetical case. > I do hope it is not an old subject. > > West North East South > pass pass 1NTa > > South is still studying has cards and the alert was > sloppy and north: > a. KNOWS that south has not seen it. > What can he do? > 1. Can he summon the director because the sloppy alert is > an irregularity? > 2. Or should he wait until it is his turn to bid sothat he > can ask for a rebid? Violation of Law 73B? > 3. Or at his turn to bid asks for an explanation of the > alert? Violation of Law 73B? > 4. Or at his turn to bid just asks west: "did you alert?" > Violation of Law 73B? > Sothat as a consequence of 2. 3. and 4 south can ask the > TD for an application of Law 21. > I think the true answer is 5. 5. just tell opponent that partner did not notice the alert. All of the above 1.-4. provide UI to partner. It tells him that there is something he should ask about. 5. does the same, but by telling the opponent, you are merely helping them not get tangled with MI. The only other good answer (and the only correct one) is to say nothing, and to take full advantage of the MI that opponents have provided. > b. north SUSPECT that south has not seen it. > Same questions 1. 2. 3. and 4. > > Same answer : 5. -- 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 Aug 11 23:18:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BDH2110249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:17:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BDGpt10245 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:16:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d274.iae.nl [212.61.5.20]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BCF520F89 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008d01c00396$ad0f1b40$14053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:43:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Every year I organize a "future-drive." Novices all over the region, just finished their bridge-course, are invited to get experience in club- and tournament bridge. I do hope they know the basic principles of the auction adorned with two conventions: Stayman and Blackwood. The novices often ask me to be allowed to look at their own convention card. My advice is than not to do that because they "never" get loose of that behaviour and never start independent thinking. It will not stimulate self-confidence and cost a lot of time. I do not forbid it but I mention that it is not according the Laws. When I was young, a few years ago, I was engaged with tournament dancing. So I tell the novices that a dancer should not look to his shoes because he is afraid to tread on partners toes. Looking downwards brings his pelvis backwards and he will never be a good dancer. Thereupon I give a demonstration with a few quicksteps. That convinced them because in all the years I have never seen a novice using his own convention card. Maybe the ACBL should organize dancing lessons instead of changing the Law. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Farebrother" To: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:46 AM Subject: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... > One of the matters on the table at the ACBL Board of Directors meetings > being held this week is the following: > > Item 002-124: Viewing Convention Card > > Moved that: > > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or > her own convention card. > > > > I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or grateful. > Anyone else have thoughts on this matter? It might at least get people > to have two... > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 11 23:32:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BDWf210262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:32:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BDWYt10258 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:32:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00957; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA250630745; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:32:25 -0400 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:32:19 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] 25A in pratice Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl 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 e7BDWct10259 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, May be I am dreaming but I have the strange impression that D Stevenson asked a similar question some months ago and that this treat generated tons of messages... Laval Du Breuil ______________________________________________ Objet : [BLML] 25A in pratice Dealer, your right hand opponent puts down the pass card and you open 1D. Now RHO starts screaming, sorry I pulled the pas card but I meant to take the stop card. Why are you so fast in making that 1D call? TD called allowed to change the pass in stop 2NT (the man had 22 points) and the auction continued pass pass pass. Probably the TD forgot to explain that the information from the withdrawn 1D bid was authorized for defenders, because declarer's RHO being on lead didn't dare to switch to diamonds which costed a trick. I am just there as a player, so no action from my side, though I told them that the diamond switch was allowed. According to his partner it was obvious to switch to diamonds anyway. Being back in the adjusted score department. Last remark on this issue: Yes Grattan, law 16 describes the possibility to withdraw a call, but wants an infraction for that. And we were not sure that an infraction occurs when somebody puts down a pass card thinking he shows the stop card. That is were this discussion started. Don't tell me this can be considered to be misinformation. 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 Aug 11 23:36:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BDa8x10275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:36:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7BDa1t10271 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:36:01 +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 e7BDaU182551 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:36:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:38:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding In-Reply-To: <3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:03 AM 8/10/00, Herman wrote: >Tell me Eric, what MI are you referring to ? > >The answer "A" as opposed to the answer "I think A" has, >IMO, exactly the same value to the opponents. So the MI >should be the same. >As you also say, both answers provide some form of UI to the >partner. > >Which is why I believe that the only difference between the >two positions is the fact that the player has given to his >opponents an extra piece of information, AI to them, but to >which they are not entitled, namely that there is a piece of >doubt. > >It is for that reason only, that I favour the HDwS. Putting potential disclosure and information issues aside for the moment, assume partner makes some call X. If I know that partner intended X to mean A, I will make call Y. If I am somewhat uncertain, though, if I think partner probably intended X to mean A, but might have intended it to mean B, I may choose to make a different call, Z, which caters to possibility that partner did not intend X to mean A. I might be thinking, "That sounds like a slam try, in which case I should bid 4NT now, but maybe he only meant is as a minimum game force, so I'll cue-bid just in case. If it was a slam try, he'll cue-bid in return, and I'll bid 4NT then, but if he signs off in game I'll let him play there." So "A" and "Probably A, but could be B" must have different values, since they may well lead me to make different calls. And if the difference might affect my subsequent actions, it might equally well affect my opponents' subsequent actions. Thus if I am bound by the tenets of full disclosure, it would seem to be incumbent on me to distinguish between these cases for my opponents' benefit. And this may still be the case if B is not some specific alternative to A, but merely "something else". 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 12 00:26:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BEPk910304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:25:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7BEPct10300 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from p87s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.136] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-ps.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13NEgN-0006Kx-00; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:17:08 -0700 Message-ID: <002c01c00396$58795be0$058193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "ton kooijman" References: <001901c00361$e01111e0$8fb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A in pratice Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:54:00 +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: Sent: 11 August 2000 08:00 Subject: [BLML] 25A in pratice . Last remark on this issue: Yes Grattan, law 16 describes the possibility to withdraw a call, but wants an infraction for that. And we were not sure that an infraction occurs when somebody puts down a pass card thinking he shows the stop card. That is were this discussion started. Don't tell me this can be considered to be misinformation. +=+ Hi ton, I think we are all* agreed what we want to happen in the kind of case you describe. There are doubts on the one hand about access to 21B and doubts on the other hand about access to 16C. The sensible thing to do is to clear it up with the authority of the committee. I have added it to the agenda for Maastricht (which is just about made up today). It takes the form of a suggestion for a footnote to Law 56A, a procedure that you instinctively dislike but such worked successfully in the Kaplan era and I shall therefore brave your wrath to put it on the table. Will be seeing you quite soon now. Cheers, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (* 'all' may not include David Burn and a couple of others, I am not sure). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 12 03:41:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BHdve10393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 03:39:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BHdpt10389 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 03:39:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id QMW26965; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:39:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1> References: <3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:42:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 10:03 AM 8/10/00, Herman wrote: > >>Tell me Eric, what MI are you referring to ? (snip) >> >>It is for that reason only, that I favour the HDwS. > >Putting potential disclosure and information issues aside for the moment, >assume partner makes some call X. If I know that partner intended X to >mean A, I will make call Y. If I am somewhat uncertain, though, if I think >partner probably intended X to mean A, but might have intended it to mean >B, I may choose to make a different call, Z, which caters to possibility >that partner did not intend X to mean A. > >I might be thinking, "That sounds like a slam try, in which case I should >bid 4NT now, but maybe he only meant is as a minimum game force, so I'll >cue-bid just in case. If it was a slam try, he'll cue-bid in return, and >I'll bid 4NT then, but if he signs off in game I'll let him play there." > >So "A" and "Probably A, but could be B" must have different values, since >they may well lead me to make different calls. And if the difference might >affect my subsequent actions, it might equally well affect my opponents' >subsequent actions. Thus if I am bound by the tenets of full disclosure, >it would seem to be incumbent on me to distinguish between these cases for >my opponents' benefit. > >And this may still be the case if B is not some specific alternative to A, >but merely "something else". > It seems to me Law 75C tells us an answer: You have no "partnership agreement or partnership experience." So your estimate of the meaning of partner's call must come from your "general knowledge and experience." If I walked into an English bridge club and was partnered at the last moment by a person who seemed to be an Englishman, I'd assume his base system was Acol, but he might well assume I played five card majors. He might assume my 2H openeing bid was weak, when I meant to show him a strong hand. So who would be adjusting on the early rounds? This kind of situation calls for the "we have no agreement" kind of answer. On the other hand, in the clubs I play in around here (central Missouri, USA) everyone plays five card majors, and practically everyone plays limit jump raises of major suit openings. If asked, I'd say that everyone here plays these methods, and I'd hope my partner would evade any UI problem that came up. When it comes to discarding, some of us play right-side up signals, some play upside-down signals, and the discards can be read according to the partnership agreement. On Tuesday afternoons, the meaning of a discard can be gauged by the age of the discarder: first discard in a suit is probably a come-on, if the discarder is over 70. We are left with the question, "What is general knowledge or experience?" REH 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 Aug 12 05:12:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BJACM10433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 05:10:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BJA6t10429 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 05:10:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4df.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.175]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA14713; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00e301c003c8$06efdf60$af11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:11:58 -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 >Please, John, quit skipping around Wendy. We're trying to discuss >bridge here, and it's hard enough concentrating *without* that image >running through my head. > >And anyway, you don't wan't to be renamed Peter, do you? > >Thanks, >Michael (what, no pixie-dust jokes allowed?). > Sorry Michael, but I really have to pan that pun. Besides, doesn't Wendy belong to Dave here in NA? Craig >P.S. Hmm. John->Wendy->Peter->Paul->John. Interesting. mdf > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 12 07:11:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BL9gv10486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:09:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BL9Zt10482 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive515.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.37]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28396; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <018101c003d8$b78f1240$af11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:08:36 -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 But wouldn't this apply to the ubiquitous stratified games that in most club, unit and sectional play are the only choice other than stay home? Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Tim West-meads To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... >In-Reply-To: <200008092246.SAA27386@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> >Michael Farebrother wrote: >> Moved that: >> >> the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its >> application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a >> player participating in any game below the level of Regional >> Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to >> his or her own convention card. >> I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or >> grateful. >This covers, one would assume, games for novices or people who want to >be treated like novices. Provided those who want to play proper >bridge can get a real game it shouldn't cause a problem should it. > >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 12 07:14:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BLCje10502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:12:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7BLCct10498 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:12:39 +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 e7BLD9008194 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:13:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811155224.00b4b600@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:45:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1> <3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:42 PM 8/11/00, Robert wrote: >It seems to me Law 75C tells us an answer: You have no "partnership >agreement or partnership experience." So your estimate of the meaning of >partner's call must come from your "general knowledge and experience." L75C tells us the answer only for the rare cases where you genuinely have no partnership agreement or experience. But when you disclose the meaning of partner's action, you may not hide behind L75C just because you have no agreement or experience with the particular action in question. You remain obligated to disclose whatever agreement or experience you might have which you believe might be relevant (and which you may use yourself) to your understanding of partner's actions. Only in those cases where you have no agreement about, no experience with, and truly no clue as to what partner intended his call to mean should you reply with nothing more than "No agreement". When asked about the auction 1S-P-2H-P-4C, there's a world of difference between "We have no agreement" and "We have no specific agreement about jump reverses, but we've agreed play double jumps as splinter bids in non-reverse situations". >If I walked into an English bridge club and was partnered at the last >moment by a person who seemed to be an Englishman, I'd assume his base >system was Acol, but he might well assume I played five card majors. He >might assume my 2H openeing bid was weak, when I meant to show him a >strong hand. So who would be adjusting on the early rounds? This kind of >situation calls for the "we have no agreement" kind of answer. Well, even at the last minute, you've undoubtedly had time for a word or two; perhaps as you sat down and took out your cards for the first board, one of you said "Acol". Unfortunately, partner opens 2D, and you haven't a clue what that is; your own, incomplete, understanding of Acol is that, as in SA, it could be just about anything. Opponents inquire. "We have no agreement" is not the same as "We have no agreement but we have agreed to play Acol". Full disclosure requires the latter, even though, for you (but perhaps not for your opponents!), it carries no additional information! >On the other hand, in the clubs I play in around here (central Missouri, >USA) everyone plays five card majors, and practically everyone plays limit >jump raises of major suit openings. If asked, I'd say that everyone here >plays these methods, and I'd hope my partner would evade any UI problem >that came up. > >When it comes to discarding, some of us play right-side up signals, some >play upside-down signals, and the discards can be read according to the >partnership agreement. On Tuesday afternoons, the meaning of a discard can >be gauged by the age of the discarder: first discard in a suit is probably >a come-on, if the discarder is over 70. > >We are left with the question, "What is general knowledge or experience?" I think it's too simplistic a reading of L75C to assume that "information [from] partnership agreement or... experience" and "general knowledge and experience" are intended to stand in opposition. I read it as saying that you are obligated to respond with full disclosure -- that means whatever knowledge you have that might be relevant to your interpretation of the partner's intended meaning -- to inquiries about your partnership agreement or experience, but are not obligated to answer questions about general bridge knowledge. "No agreement" should be functionally equivalent to "I haven't a clue", and appropriate only when that is the literal truth. If you have a clue, you should disclose it. It is arrogant to assume that just because you can't put the pieces of information you have at hand together to come up with a good answer the opponents won't be able to either, and unethical to use this as a justification for withholding them. The auction goes 1S-P-2S-P-3D, and opponents inquire. You may think that anyone who plays bridge should know from their "general bridge knowledge or experience" that "No agreement" means that 3D should be a game try with diamonds, but it is nevertheless inappropriate; full disclosure requires you to tell the opponents that this is a game try with diamonds. The effect of the last clause of L75C is that if the opponents now ask "How many points does he need to make a game try?", you are entitled to say "No agreement" -- unless, of course, you have an agreement, or know from prior experience that partner is a point-count slave and will always have 16-18 Goren points, or whatever. But if it's Tuesday, and you know that (a) "first discard in a suit is probably a come-on if the discarder is over 70" and (b) partner is over 70, you should say "That's probably a come-on"; "No agreement", notwithstanding that it may be literally true, is not full disclosure. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 12 08:00:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BLxKQ10525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:59:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7BLxEt10521 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:59:14 +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 NAA11306 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:59:09 -0800 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:59:09 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] On the subject of regulations... In-Reply-To: <200008092246.SAA27386@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 Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Michael Farebrother wrote: > Moved that: > > the ACBL Laws Commission is requested to change law 40 E 2, its > application or interpretation to permit the ACBL to allow a > player participating in any game below the level of Regional > Championship, except for stand alone Flight A events, to refer to his or > her own convention card. > > I don't know whether I should be scared, confused, worried or grateful. > Anyone else have thoughts on this matter? It might at least get people > to have two... My recommendation is "scared". My district's representative to the national board discussed this proposal with us at our last district board meeting in June. I remember feeling completely stunned, not being able to believe the words I was hearing from her mouth, as she asked us for our opinions. We spent several minutes discussing the pros and cons of it. The sense I got was that people (who? we weren't told) were fed up with the muddle that follows an "I don't know" answer. (Remember a while back when "send partner away from the table and explain the bid yourself" was the hot new thing in ACBLand? That one has almost been stamped out in tournaments, and this is the replacement for it. Geez.) The proponents of this motion are talking up the "we have to make the beginners feel welcome" aspect of it, and are winning the votes of the uninformed quite easily with this line. You see, everyone is in a panic about how the under-300 players are avoiding the stratified open games, and you could get a regulation passed requiring all players to wear purple bow-ties and three-cornered hats if you claimed it would make the beginners play more. This is nonsense, of course -- it isn't the novices who are the least bit intimidated by conventions or memorization, it is the antiques. I and several others on the district board defended the "no aids to memory!" position. The advocates of the change remained convinced that there was no reason other than tradition to insist on not looking at one's own card. Sigh. The official minutes of the District 19 meeting from June read: "No consensus was reached on allowing players to look at their own convention card during bidding but there were more negative comments than positive." I am assuming Barbara Nist will vote against the motion on that basis, but I don't know. If I had to guess, this motion is likely to fail, but I wouldn't be shocked to see it forwarded to the LC. Let us pray that the laws commission will wisely decline to change the ACBL laws without asking the rest of the world first. Please, all you ACBL people, track down your district representatives and let them know you care about things like this. Too late to influence this vote, but there will be more like it in the future. 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 Sat Aug 12 08:55:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7BMtDu10559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:55:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7BMt6t10555 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 08:55:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09521 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811155224.00b4b600@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1> <3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000811155224.00b4b600@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:47:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eric Landau writes: >"No agreement" should be functionally equivalent to "I haven't a >clue", and appropriate only when that is the literal truth. "No agreement" means "no agreement". It does _not_ mean "I haven't a clue." I agree that "no agreement" is often insufficient. But to say it's _only_ sufficient when you "haven't a clue" goes too far in the other direction. 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/AwUBOZSERb2UW3au93vOEQIiJwCfRVRg3PoHhu97EDhUaHaz9alEV0AAn2uH JyRTWUsW3dShRxmAOJIyvpCO =0ak3 -----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 Aug 12 13:01:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7C2xox10653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:59:50 +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 (oe54.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7C2xgt10649 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:59:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:59:33 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.19.61] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1><3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be><4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000811155224.00b4b600@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 22:01:18 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2000 02:59:33.0632 (UTC) FILETIME=[578B0800:01C00409] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk These discussions have brought me to a conclusion. Please cover your ears because I am not going to like this which means anyone listening is going to like it less. My conclusion is that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy about disclosure. There, I said it. You can uncover your ears now. Now, what I mean is this. A big deal is made about full disclosure. It is like a mantra. But look at what it creates- an infinite and impossible standard to meet that depends on the eye of the beholder. Much is made about it being terrible to mandate and enforce pairs fully discussing their method before play so that they will be in a position to meet the standard without excuses. It is claimed that it would make casual partnerships [last second meetings] untenable and cause an exodus from tournament. Well, nothing that I can see has been done that is close to satisfactory. Maybe fair disclosure is the very last on the important things list. The standards put to players get more demanding yet it has been getting worse, not better. Just maybe the premise upon which the rules are based is off target. Just maybe if players are given cause to realize that it is important to know their system they would organize their time to meet their obligation. I think that this is not the only condition but nothing will work without it. And what is wrong with the league providing players without the time to discuss with an alternative like one or two standard systems [with standardized treatments] that they can pull out and use until they get everything tied down. Certainly, on balance their scores would be better than the hunt and peck, take an adjustment here and there that comes with MI and UI creation. And for those who fail to meet their duty too often- would it not be fairest to the field to enforce the simplest of League Standard Systems upon them until they are ready to meet their obligation? Such an approach would deal with players problems. And isn't that what the bridge authority is for? I apologize for spouting off. I'm crawling into a hole. Regards, Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding | At 01:42 PM 8/11/00, Robert wrote: | | >It seems to me Law 75C tells us an answer: You have no "partnership | >agreement or partnership experience." So your estimate of the meaning of | >partner's call must come from your "general knowledge and experience." | | L75C tells us the answer only for the rare cases where you genuinely have | no partnership agreement or experience. But when you disclose the meaning | of partner's action, you may not hide behind L75C just because you have no | agreement or experience with the particular action in question. You remain | obligated to disclose whatever agreement or experience you might have which | you believe might be relevant (and which you may use yourself) to your | understanding of partner's actions. Only in those cases where you have no | agreement about, no experience with, and truly no clue as to what partner | intended his call to mean should you reply with nothing more than "No | agreement". | | When asked about the auction 1S-P-2H-P-4C, there's a world of difference | between "We have no agreement" and "We have no specific agreement about | jump reverses, but we've agreed play double jumps as splinter bids in | non-reverse situations". | | >If I walked into an English bridge club and was partnered at the last | >moment by a person who seemed to be an Englishman, I'd assume his base | >system was Acol, but he might well assume I played five card majors. He | >might assume my 2H openeing bid was weak, when I meant to show him a | >strong hand. So who would be adjusting on the early rounds? This kind of | >situation calls for the "we have no agreement" kind of answer. | | Well, even at the last minute, you've undoubtedly had time for a word or | two; perhaps as you sat down and took out your cards for the first board, | one of you said "Acol". Unfortunately, partner opens 2D, and you haven't a | clue what that is; your own, incomplete, understanding of Acol is that, as | in SA, it could be just about anything. Opponents inquire. "We have no | agreement" is not the same as "We have no agreement but we have agreed to | play Acol". Full disclosure requires the latter, even though, for you (but | perhaps not for your opponents!), it carries no additional information! | | >On the other hand, in the clubs I play in around here (central Missouri, | >USA) everyone plays five card majors, and practically everyone plays limit | >jump raises of major suit openings. If asked, I'd say that everyone here | >plays these methods, and I'd hope my partner would evade any UI problem | >that came up. | > | >When it comes to discarding, some of us play right-side up signals, some | >play upside-down signals, and the discards can be read according to the | >partnership agreement. On Tuesday afternoons, the meaning of a discard can | >be gauged by the age of the discarder: first discard in a suit is probably | >a come-on, if the discarder is over 70. | > | >We are left with the question, "What is general knowledge or experience?" | | I think it's too simplistic a reading of L75C to assume that "information | [from] partnership agreement or... experience" and "general knowledge and | experience" are intended to stand in opposition. I read it as saying that | you are obligated to respond with full disclosure -- that means whatever | knowledge you have that might be relevant to your interpretation of the | partner's intended meaning -- to inquiries about your partnership agreement | or experience, but are not obligated to answer questions about general | bridge knowledge. | | "No agreement" should be functionally equivalent to "I haven't a clue", and | appropriate only when that is the literal truth. If you have a clue, you | should disclose it. It is arrogant to assume that just because you can't | put the pieces of information you have at hand together to come up with a | good answer the opponents won't be able to either, and unethical to use | this as a justification for withholding them. | | The auction goes 1S-P-2S-P-3D, and opponents inquire. You may think that | anyone who plays bridge should know from their "general bridge knowledge or | experience" that "No agreement" means that 3D should be a game try with | diamonds, but it is nevertheless inappropriate; full disclosure requires | you to tell the opponents that this is a game try with diamonds. | | The effect of the last clause of L75C is that if the opponents now ask "How | many points does he need to make a game try?", you are entitled to say "No | agreement" -- unless, of course, you have an agreement, or know from prior | experience that partner is a point-count slave and will always have 16-18 | Goren points, or whatever. | | But if it's Tuesday, and you know that (a) "first discard in a suit is | probably a come-on if the discarder is over 70" and (b) partner is over 70, | you should say "That's probably a come-on"; "No agreement", notwithstanding | that it may be literally true, is not full disclosure. | Eric Landau elandau@cais.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 Aug 12 18:01:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7C7xc910770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:59:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f192.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7C7xWt10766 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:59:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:59:23 -0700 Received: from 172.128.139.59 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.139.59] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:59:23 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Aug 2000 07:59:23.0985 (UTC) FILETIME=[3AA10C10:01C00433] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Roger Pewick" >These discussions have brought me to a conclusion. Please cover your >ears because I am not going to like this which means anyone listening is >going to like it less. My conclusion is that there is a tremendous >amount of hypocrisy about disclosure. There, I said it. You can >uncover your ears now. ..... Maybe what I have to say will appeal less. It wasn't until I played duplicate in an ACBL-sanctioned game that I even considered bridge to be a 'full-knowledge/hyper-rational' game. I hadn't encountered HUMs yet, either. I was confused not only for the mechanics of alerts, but their purpose as well. Mind you, I prefer this version of the game we play, but I wonder if full-disclosure really is an innate concept to the game. Isn't 'full-disclosure' maintained as an idea in the game because your opponents are incapable of asking too specific a question without conveying UI? At what point does the questioner lose rights because his question was too vague to be answered adequately by anyone other than a mind-reader? -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 Aug 12 19:15:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7C9El710819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:14:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7C9Ect10811 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:14:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22213 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:14:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3993ECF0.7DA0AD17@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:09:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements References: <4A256938.0012AD0D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I believe the response should vary on the opponent. Against a member of the same club, you should reply : "We have not discussed it." He knows what that means Against a member of a different club but from the same town, you should reply : "We have not discussed it, but my partner is of level ..." which should be enough for that person. Against a foreigner, you should say : "We have not discussed it, but here in this country everybody plays ...". Of course in all three cases I prefer to answer "five cards". richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Hypothetical: You are partnering a stranger, and have had no time to discuss > system. On the first board pard opens 1H, and RHO asks, "Do you play 4 card or 5 > card majors?" > > Question one: If playing in Britain, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am > taking it as a 4 card major." > > Question two: If playing in the USA, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am > taking it as a 5 card major." > > Question three: If playing in New Zealand, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I > am taking it as a fert?" > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > *************************** > Important Warning! > *************************** > This electronic communication (including any attached files) may contain > confidential and/or legally privileged information and is only intended for the > use of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, you do not have permission to read, use, disseminate, distribute, > copy or retain any part of this communication or its attachments in any form. > If this e-mail was sent to you by mistake, please take the time to notify the > sender so that they can identify the problem and avoid any more mistakes in > sending e-mail to you. The unauthorised use of information contained in this > communication or its attachments may result in legal action against any person > who uses 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/ -- 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 Aug 12 19:15:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7C9ElE10818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:14:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7C9EZt10810 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:14:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22207 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:14:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3993EA68.E6DA48D8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:58:32 +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: [BLML] L25A References: <200008102202.SAA13815@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > I am not so sure a change would be unacceptable. Why not make the rule > similar to that for play of declarer's card? Players accept that, and > if the change were announced with great fanfare as part of a general > update of the laws, why wouldn't the players go along? One could even > justify it as part of the "make bridge a sport" movement. > > In fact, the parallel appeals to me: same rule for spoken call as for > call of card from dummy; same rule for bidding box as for play of > declarer's card. Is that really so bad? Players would have a > reasonable time to correct mechanical mistakes, but at some moment the > call is "made," and that is that. > Apart from the arguments I used before : cards are standardised, well constructed, frequently changed and people play with them from an early age - bidding boxes vary in size and order, often of lesser quality paper, sometimes quite old, and only used in bridge; there is one other argument I'v just thought of. Have you ever seen a left hander, with a righthanded, unadapted bidding box, try to take out the bidding cards (not just one - always a bundle), while still holding the cards ? There is a level of dexterity required that cannot be dealt with even with rules like - touching the table. The best way of getting the correct bidding card is for some people to put a whole lot down, then to take away the superfluous ones. Laws must be made that incorporate this difficulty. So, if we want to make a law that clearly gets away with "inadvertent", we must regulate that a call is made only when it is quitted (left on the table without any further attempt at correction). Then of course we need not have a L25A that allows for correction after next player has bid. But I don't believe this is what we want. > Ah, well, a good topic for 2007 (or 2005 or whenever). The LC will > want to consider whether to bring bidding box rules into the Laws or > continue to leave them to regulation. > -- > I vote to bring them into the Laws (and screens as well). It is the form of the sport that is used at World Championships, so it should be the form in the Law book. Then we can still allow SO's to make other methods, but it' silly that the WBF should need to make additional rules, contradicting the standard of the Law book. -- 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 Aug 13 00:53:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7CEq0d10937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:52:00 +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 e7CEpnt10933 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:51:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.50] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13NcdT-000GgN-00; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:51:43 +0100 Message-ID: <00aa01c0046c$da3a3240$325608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200008102202.SAA13815@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A [& 2005] Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:45:06 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A > > Ah, well, a good topic for 2007 (or 2005 > or whenever). The LC will want to consider > whether to bring bidding box rules into the > Laws or continue to leave them to regulation. > -- +=+ The question should be asked of one or two items. There may be some that we should not leave to regulation, or for which we should provide a 'default' regulation. NBOs are not uniformly aware/skilled and can leave holes. [Some of which are noticed]. ~ 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 Aug 13 03:23:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7CHMeu11063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 03:22:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (smtp1.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7CHMYt11059 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 03:22:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from derrrr (as604604.singnet.com.sg [165.21.206.28]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA16587 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 01:22:25 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000813011817.00916af0@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 01:18:17 +0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: derrick Subject: [BLML] Ruling from Singapore Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi to all Would appreciate your opinions on the following: Team of 4 (7 board match) Dealer E None vul S Q8753 H AK D KJ3 C 952 S A962 S K H Q4 H T8732 D T52 D Q8764 C JT83 C K7 S JT4 H J965 D A9 C AQ64 Bidding: E S W N P 1NT* P 2C* P 2D* P 2S 2NT* 4S P P P 1NT 10-12 HCP balanced (alertable here) 2C INV enquiry 2D shows 4 Hearts, denies 4 spades 2NT explained as 2 suiter, at least 9 cards, probably minors Contract: 4S by N Lead: Heart 8 The play: E S W N H8 H9 HQ HK D4 DA D2 D3 D6 D9 D5 DK D8 S4 D10 DJ SK SJ S2 S3 D8 S10 H4 C2 H2 H6 S6 HA C7 CQ CJ C5 H3 HJ C3 C9 H7 H9 C8 S5 SQ and 2 spades conceded, down 1. Now N claims MI and damage as he claims to have based the play on an inferential count of E's hand for 1=3=5=4. Specifically, at the point when D8 was led to give a ruff/discard (and W threw a H): S Q875 H A D - C 952 S A96 S H 4 H T732 D D Q8 C JT8 C K7 S T H J965 D - C AQ64 Declarer says he based the play on E having 2 H left, with length in the minors, planning to ruff with S10, discarding a club, play H to A, club to A, HJ discarding a club and club ruff in hand. Then play a trump and claim the last trick with QS so long as W has the Spade length, losing 3 trumps in all. Says that without the misinfo, he may well have adopted some other line of play. Questions: How do you rule ? If you rule MI, was there any damage and how would you adjust ? Disclosure: I was involved in the deal, there was a ruling and an appeal. Would appreciate you analysis. Thanks Derrick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 13 06:51:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7CKo7b11155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:50:07 +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 e7CKnwt11148 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:49:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.132] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13NiE4-000L2l-00; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:49:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c0049e$e3840d80$845908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200008102202.SAA13815@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3993EA68.E6DA48D8@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:28:45 +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, August 11, 2000 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A ----------------- \x/ ------------- > I vote to bring them into the Laws (and screens as well). > > It is the form of the sport that is used at World > Championships, so it should be the form in the Law book. > +=+ I would rather say that 'the Law book should cater for it." +=+ > > Then we can still allow SO's to make other methods, but it' > silly that the WBF should need to make additional rules, > contradicting the standard of the Law book. > +=+ The Law book itself should cater also for other commonly adopted methods. ~ 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 Aug 13 06:51:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7CKo8T11156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:50:08 +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 e7CKnvt11147 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:49:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.132] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13NiE2-000L2l-00; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:49:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c0049e$e24e4ca0$845908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "Todd Zimnoch" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:17:55 +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: Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding > >From: "Roger Pewick" > >These discussions have brought me to a conclusion. Please cover your > >ears because I am not going to like this which means anyone listening is > >going to like it less. My conclusion is that there is a tremendous > >amount of hypocrisy about disclosure. There, I said it. You can > >uncover your ears now. > +=+ Do you say it is hypocritical to set standards and then largely rely on players to honour them? +=+ > Todd Zimnoch: > > Maybe what I have to say will appeal less. It wasn't until I played > duplicate in an ACBL-sanctioned game that I even considered bridge to be a > 'full-knowledge/hyper-rational' game. I hadn't encountered HUMs yet, > either. I was confused not only for the mechanics of alerts, but their > purpose as well. Mind you, I prefer this version of the game we play, but I > wonder if full-disclosure really is an innate concept to the game. > > Isn't 'full-disclosure' maintained as an idea in the game because your > opponents are incapable of asking too specific a question without conveying > UI? At what point does the questioner lose rights because his question was > too vague to be answered adequately by anyone other than a mind-reader? > +=+ It is difficult to reply to the doubts because I, for example, only know the earlier ethos of the game from within the British scene. Here Geoffrey Butler, Dimmie Fleming and Geoffrey Fell, all taught that the game was one of full disclosure. I first began to take an interest in laws matters when (in days before Kaplan had arrived) the 1963 code was introduced. The possible relevance of certain of its statements may be considered: First, the definition of 'convention': "Any call or play which, by agreement or understanding between partners, serves to convey a meaning other than would be attributed to it by the opponents in the absence of an explanation." Second, amongst the Proprieties: "It is improper to use, in calling or playing, any convention the meaning of which may not be understood by the opponents. Conventional calls or plays should be explained to the opponents before any player has looked at his cards." Third, Law 40(a): "A player may not make a call or play based on a partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side has announced its use of such call or play before either member has looked at his hand." What do you think? Does that not argue a requirement in the 1963 laws for full disclosure? ~ 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 Aug 13 09:09:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7CN8m611221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:08:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7CN8ft11217 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:08:42 +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 QMW2796D; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:08:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1246000616==_ma============" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811155224.00b4b600@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1> <3992B625.3D716D25@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:11:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --============_-1246000616==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 8/11/00 16:45 Eric wrote >At 01:42 PM 8/11/00, Robert wrote: > >>It seems to me Law 75C tells us an answer: You have no "partnership >>agreement or partnership experience." So your estimate of the meaning of >>partner's call must come from your "general knowledge and experience." > >L75C tells us the answer only for the rare cases where you genuinely have >no partnership agreement or experience. But when you disclose the meaning >of partner's action, you may not hide behind L75C just because you have no >agreement or experience with the particular action in question. You remain >obligated to disclose whatever agreement or experience you might have which >you believe might be relevant (and which you may use yourself) to your >understanding of partner's actions. Only in those cases where you have no >agreement about, no experience with, and truly no clue as to what partner >intended his call to mean should you reply with nothing more than "No >agreement". > (Remainder snipped.) An answer, not the answer. The trouble is Law 75C says "partnership agreement or partnershjip experience." But what about implicit understandings? In my view, the right sort of answer is "Around here, people play this several different ways. It might be this (explained) or that (explained) or the other (explained.)" Unless I have a reasonable basis for one almost surely correct, I think is is wrong to say more. The right answer beyond that is "We have no agreement." As an example, last night a pair who have played against each other many, many times had an auction (I omit our side's passes) 1H-2NT 3H-P scoring 140 for close to a top for us. The heart bidder was playing Jacoby 2NT as strong raise of hearts, the 2NT bidder was playing 2NT as the old-fasioned game-force in NT. (I don't know why she passed 3H.) Obviously, each one thought she knew what 2NT meant. But one of them was wrong. They literally had no agreement about the 2NT, in spite of all that experience. Anyone foolish enough to ask would have got a wrong answer. What I am really concerned with, though I tried to avoid saying so, is the meaning of implicit agreements in Law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. " A lot of discussion has gone on, but I don't see much of an answer coming out. If I were playing with a probable Acol player, I'd assume a 2D call showed a diamond suit and was strong and forcing for one round. But he might think I would read it as weak. (Save me from people who assume everyone plays Flannery-4 spades, 5 hearts, 11-15 HCP!) So if it came up and we had actually mumbled something about Acol, I'd explain it as strong, showing a diamond suit, and forcing for one round. But if we had not got the Acol mumble made, I'd say it was no agreement. If we were playing around here, I'd first say we had no agreement, then I'd explain about Acol 2D to the best of my ability, but I'd say it might also be a weak 2D, or even game forcing showing diamonds, or Flannery. I may not have an agreement or an understanding, but I have a lot of information. Unless I know what system my partner plays regularly and unless we have at least some agreement to play it, I think "We have no agreement. It might be this, or that, or the other." is the right sort of answer, provided I am sure I know all those answers. And provided I am not held accountable when my partner thinks the Leghorn Diamond is the cat's meow of a system that everyone plays. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1246000616==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" At 8/11/00 16:45 Eric wrote >At 01:42 PM 8/11/00, Robert wrote: > >>It seems to me Law 75C tells us an answer: You have no "partnership >>agreement or partnership experience." So your estimate of the meaning of >>partner's call must come from your "general knowledge and experience." > >L75C tells us the answer only for the rare cases where you genuinely have >no partnership agreement or experience. But when you disclose the meaning >of partner's action, you may not hide behind L75C just because you have no >agreement or experience with the particular action in question. You remain >obligated to disclose whatever agreement or experience you might have which >you believe might be relevant (and which you may use yourself) to your >understanding of partner's actions. Only in those cases where you have no >agreement about, no experience with, and truly no clue as to what partner >intended his call to mean should you reply with nothing more than "No >agreement". > (Remainder snipped.) An answer, not the answer. The trouble is Law 75C says "partnership agreement or partnershjip experience." But what about implicit understandings? In my view, the right sort of answer is "Around here, people play this several different ways. It might be this (explained) or that (explained) or the other (explained.)" Unless I have a reasonable basis for one almost surely correct, I think is is wrong to say more. The right answer beyond that is "We have no agreement." As an example, last night a pair who have played against each other many, many times had an auction (I omit our side's passes) 1H-2NT 3H-P scoring 140 for close to a top for us. The heart bidder was playing Jacoby 2NT as strong raise of hearts, the 2NT bidder was playing 2NT as the old-fasioned game-force in NT. (I don't know why she passed 3H.) Obviously, each one thought she knew what 2NT meant. But one of them was wrong. They literally had no agreement about the 2NT, in spite of all that experience. Anyone foolish enough to ask would have got a wrong answer. What I am really concerned with, though I tried to avoid saying so, is the meaning of implicit agreements in Law 75A: "TimesSpecial partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. " A lot of discussion has gone on, but I don't see much of an answer coming out. If I were playing with a probable Acol player, I'd assume a 2D call showed a diamond suit and was strong and forcing for one round. But he might think I would read it as weak. (Save me from people who assume everyone plays Flannery-4 spades, 5 hearts, 11-15 HCP!) So if it came up and we had actually mumbled something about Acol, I'd explain it as strong, showing a diamond suit, and forcing for one round. But if we had not got the Acol mumble made, I'd say it was no agreement. If we were playing around here, I'd first say we had no agreement, then I'd explain about Acol 2D to the best of my ability, but I'd say it might also be a weak 2D, or even game forcing showing diamonds, or Flannery. I may not have an agreement or an understanding, but I have a lot of information. Unless I know what system my partner plays regularly and unless we have at least some agreement to play it, I think "We have no agreement. It might be this, or that, or the other." is the right sort of answer, provided I am sure I know all those answers. And provided I am not held accountable when my partner thinks the Leghorn Diamond is the cat's meow of a system that everyone plays. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1246000616==_ma============-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 13 10:18:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7D0I9l11257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:18:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7D0Hxt11253 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:18:01 +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 QAA22578 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:17:52 -0800 Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:17:52 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: <3yvcNwAyEsk5Ew40@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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, 10 Aug 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: [snip] > >change it if they do so immediately"; that is 100% accurate. But the idea > >that they may change it after a significant delay (even when they realize > >for the first time that it was inadvertent) is counter-intuitive, and must > >be learned. It took three separate occurrences of my asking my wife why > >she made some apparently ridiculous bid, her replying "I pulled the wrong > >bid card, but by the time I noticed I assumed it was too late to do > >anything", and my attempting to educate her on the subtlety of L25A, before > >she learned that she should attempt to correct an inadvertent call as soon > >as she notices it, even if some time may have passed. IMO players would be > >more intuitively comfortable than they are now with a law that provided for > >immediate corrections only. > > No, "would have been", not "would be". I would be happy if we had > never had this Law, but now we have had it for many years, and now its > use has become commonplace, I do not think we are going to make the > average player happier by going backwards. Note that my disagreement > with David B's proposal of no changes whatever is not that I think it > wrong, but i think it too late to introduce now. I beg to differ. At least in the Western USA it has never become commonplace. The vast majority of players have in their minds a sense that going back and changing a call after a long time lapse shouldn't be allowed, and many (myself included) who have learned that they have such a right under the current laws find exercising this right so contrary to the spirit of the game that they (we) never would. Asking to use L25B to get an A- instead of a bottom after a silly bid would be one of the fastest ways to get oneself labelled an obnoxious jerk of a bridge lawyer. (I'm not saying that is right. Just that this is how it is currently.) In directing at the club and playing in several tournaments a year, I have never seen anyone ask to make a delayed or purposeful correction, and can recall two instances of mechanical errors being corrected after LHO had bid. (They were both 4S-instead-of-Blackwood mispulls, and in one of the two cases the 4NT card was missing altogether from the bid-box.) My conclusion: 25B has to go, and the sooner it goes, the fewer people will have started taking advantage of the loophole it currently provides. 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 Sun Aug 13 10:47:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7D0kxL11276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:46:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7D0kot11272 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:46:51 +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 QAA23770 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:46:44 -0800 Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:46:44 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Slight clarification. On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Gordon Bower wrote: > My conclusion: 25B has to go, and the sooner it goes, the fewer people > will have started taking advantage of the loophole it currently provides. With appropriate tidying of 25A also. Somehow that bit got lost despite the topic of the thread :) 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 Sun Aug 13 10:49:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7D0nn811288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:49:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f151.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7D0nht11284 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:49:35 -0700 Received: from 172.155.81.127 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.81.127] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 17:49:35 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2000 00:49:35.0768 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A112980:01C004C0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Isn't 'full-disclosure' maintained as an idea in the game because >your > > opponents are incapable of asking too specific a question without >conveying > > UI? At what point does the questioner lose rights because his question >was > > too vague to be answered adequately by anyone other than a mind-reader? > > >+=+ It is difficult to reply to the doubts because I, for example, >only know the earlier ethos of the game from within the British >scene. Here Geoffrey Butler, Dimmie Fleming and Geoffrey Fell, >all taught that the game was one of full disclosure. I first began >to take an interest in laws matters when (in days before Kaplan >had arrived) the 1963 code was introduced. The possible >relevance of certain of its statements may be considered: > >First, the definition of 'convention': "Any call or play which, by >agreement or understanding between partners, serves to >convey a meaning other than would be attributed to it by the >opponents in the absence of an explanation." > >Second, amongst the Proprieties: >"It is improper to use, in calling or playing, any convention >the meaning of which may not be understood by the >opponents. Conventional calls or plays should be explained >to the opponents before any player has looked at his cards." > >Third, Law 40(a): >"A player may not make a call or play based on a >partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may >reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or >unless his side has announced its use of such call or >play before either member has looked at his hand." > >What do you think? Does that not argue a requirement >in the 1963 laws for full disclosure? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have no doubt that the game of "duplicate contract bridge" is one which includes full-disclosure. I was just stating that my first contact with bridge (rubber bridge, for the most part) was a game that did not include disclosure. As well, frivilous bidding was welcome, so you might claim that it was a barbaric game played by decadents. Ah how I miss my college days. I'll also say that those 1963 laws are unreasonable in this day in age. They say that you can't use any system which your opponents are not also versed in. The time it takes to explain a system with a fair number of conventions is prohibitive to actually playing the game. It will continue to get worse. There should be some level of responsibility put on the opponents for making certain that they get themselves informed of whatever they deem important. -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 Sun Aug 13 11:21:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7D1KdZ11311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:20:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7D1KXt11306 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:20:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id VAA14403 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA06248 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:20:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008130120.VAA06248@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > 5-card majors are more popular among French-speaking and Acol among > Dutch-speaking (though not by much). > But asking somebody what his/her mother tongue is is not allowed by our laws. If a player's language is relevant information and known to partner, L75C says it should be disclosed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 13 17:00:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7D6x3h11435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:59:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7D6wvt11429 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:58:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.162]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000813070008.FEQM6191.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:00:08 +1200 Message-ID: <004001c004f3$7ed312a0$a26860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Dummy plays declarer's intended card. Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 08:47:10 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0036_01C00503.11F0AC00" 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_0036_01C00503.11F0AC00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was not going to post this as I was at the table and the committee = overturned the director's ruling which had been in our favour. But I'll = be damned if the same (well very similar) infraction did not occur to me = a week later in another tournament. The original case: Declarer played the H10 towards AJxx, I played the King and declarer = called for "a heart". Dummy pulled the HA. After a brief pause I said "I don't think that is what happened. ... = Director please" The director determined with declarer's agreement that "a heart" had = been called and ruled that a small heart was played. Given that there was no attempt to correct the designation of "a heart" = are there any circumstances under which you would rule that the heart = ace was played? The only possibility that I can think of is that declarer's failure to = complain about the HA being played was some sort of implicit correction = of her inadvertancy. Yesterday's example was similar but a much easier to correct: Declarer called for the "Jack" but there were two Jacks in the dummy = neither of the suit led dummy pulled one (the obvious one but who knows = declarer's intention). In this case "jack" is incomplete and the fix is = for declarer to make a complete designation and probably a warning to = dummy to not play cards not named. Wayne Burrows ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C00503.11F0AC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was not going to post this as = I was at=20 the table and the committee overturned the director's ruling which had = been in=20 our favour.  But I'll be damned if the same (well very similar) = infraction=20 did not occur to me a week later in another tournament.
 
The original case:
 
Declarer played the H10 towards = AJxx, I=20 played the King and declarer called for "a heart".  Dummy pulled = the=20 HA.
 
After a brief pause I said "I = don't think=20 that is what happened. ... Director please"
 
The director determined with = declarer's=20 agreement that "a heart" had been called and ruled that a small heart = was=20 played.
 
Given that there was no attempt = to correct=20 the designation of "a heart" are there any circumstances under which you = would=20 rule that the heart ace was played?
 
The only possibility that I can = think of is=20 that declarer's failure to complain about the HA being played was some = sort of=20 implicit correction of her inadvertancy.
 
Yesterday's example was similar = but a much=20 easier to correct:
 
Declarer called for the "Jack" = but there=20 were two Jacks in the dummy neither of the suit led dummy pulled one = (the=20 obvious one but who knows declarer's intention).  In this case = "jack" is=20 incomplete and the fix is for declarer to make a complete designation = and=20 probably a warning to dummy to not play cards not named.
 
Wayne Burrows
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C00503.11F0AC00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 13 17:00:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7D6x7p11439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:59:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7D6x2t11434 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:59:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.104.162]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000813070014.FEQT6191.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:00:14 +1200 Message-ID: <004101c004f3$8275dbe0$a26860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "bridge-laws" References: <017501c00339$0b8293e0$29de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000f01c00329$9113a4a0$aa5908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:07:03 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I am not expecting these to be banned, > certainly not if a solid suit is defined as > A K Q J x x - 'weak' is 'a hand of less than > average strength in HCP'. It may need a > decision if a pair plays it as A K Q x x x x Or even AKJxxxxx. Excuse me but this definition is abject myopic nonsense. hcp simply do not define the strength of a bridge hand in any 'natural' sense. At best they are a simple guide to hand evaluation. AKJ1098765432 x - - A 'weak' 6S opener. QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 Q432 A strong (well not 'weak') 1NT. 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 Tue Aug 15 21:00:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FAvJZ15753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:57:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FAvAt15749 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:57:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-209.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.209]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA27120 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3995195F.FB9A1C75@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:31:11 +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] question on question and answer about discarding References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000810091432.00a96180@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20000811091218.00b59580@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I fully agree with what Eric wrote, and accept it as a modification to the DwS position. I believe however, that it is a special occurence which must lead to a special treatment. I do not feel I need to change my views simply because I agree with Eric in this particular case. Eric Landau wrote: > > At 10:03 AM 8/10/00, Herman wrote: > > >Tell me Eric, what MI are you referring to ? > > > >The answer "A" as opposed to the answer "I think A" has, > >IMO, exactly the same value to the opponents. So the MI > >should be the same. > >As you also say, both answers provide some form of UI to the > >partner. > > > >Which is why I believe that the only difference between the > >two positions is the fact that the player has given to his > >opponents an extra piece of information, AI to them, but to > >which they are not entitled, namely that there is a piece of > >doubt. > > > >It is for that reason only, that I favour the HDwS. > > Putting potential disclosure and information issues aside for the moment, > assume partner makes some call X. If I know that partner intended X to > mean A, I will make call Y. If I am somewhat uncertain, though, if I think > partner probably intended X to mean A, but might have intended it to mean > B, I may choose to make a different call, Z, which caters to possibility > that partner did not intend X to mean A. > > I might be thinking, "That sounds like a slam try, in which case I should > bid 4NT now, but maybe he only meant is as a minimum game force, so I'll > cue-bid just in case. If it was a slam try, he'll cue-bid in return, and > I'll bid 4NT then, but if he signs off in game I'll let him play there." > > So "A" and "Probably A, but could be B" must have different values, since > they may well lead me to make different calls. And if the difference might > affect my subsequent actions, it might equally well affect my opponents' > subsequent actions. Thus if I am bound by the tenets of full disclosure, > it would seem to be incumbent on me to distinguish between these cases for > my opponents' benefit. > > And this may still be the case if B is not some specific alternative to A, > but merely "something else". > > 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 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Aug 15 21:00:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB0At15810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:00:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7FB06t15806 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:00:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa934359 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:06:53 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-203.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.203]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Steep-n-Deep-MailRouter V2.9 7/12809021); 13 Aug 2000 22:06:49 Message-ID: <001801c00582$e6181840$cbd436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling from Singapore Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:01:29 +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 Derrick wrote: >Team of 4 (7 board match) > >Dealer E >None vul > S Q8753 > H AK > D KJ3 > C 952 > S A962 S K > H Q4 H T8732 > D T52 D Q8764 > C JT83 C K7 > S JT4 > H J965 > D A9 > C AQ64 > >Bidding: > E S W N > P 1NT* P 2C* > P 2D* P 2S > 2NT* 4S P P > P > >1NT 10-12 HCP balanced (alertable here) >2C INV enquiry >2D shows 4 Hearts, denies 4 spades > >2NT explained as 2 suiter, at least 9 cards, probably minors > >Contract: 4S by N >Lead: Heart 8 > >The play: > E S W N > H8 H9 HQ HK > D4 DA D2 D3 > D6 D9 D5 DK > D8 S4 D10 DJ > SK SJ S2 S3 > D8 S10 H4 C2 > H2 H6 S6 HA > C7 CQ CJ C5 > H3 HJ C3 C9 > H7 H9 C8 S5 > SQ > >and 2 spades conceded, down 1. > >Now N claims MI and damage as he claims to have based >the play on an inferential count of E's hand for 1=3=5=4. > >Specifically, at the point when D8 was led to give a ruff/discard >(and W threw a H): > > S Q875 > H A > D - > C 952 > S A96 S > H 4 H T732 > D D Q8 > C JT83 C K7 > S T > H J65 > D - > C AQ64 > I have deleted South's H9 and added West's C3. (PG). >Declarer says he based the play on E having 2 H left, with length >in the minors, planning to ruff with S10, discarding a club, play H >to A, club to A, HJ discarding a club and club ruff in hand. Then >play a trump and claim the last trick with QS so long as W has >the Spade length, losing 3 trumps in all. Says that without the >misinfo, he may well have adopted some other line of play. > >Questions: >How do you rule ? >If you rule MI, was there any damage and how would you adjust ? Assuming that the only information available is in Derrick's post, I would rule no MI. However "being there" would help; my initial impression (that West's explanation was a pretty fair effort at guessing what partner had in a situation which no pair is likely to have discussed) may turn out to be incorrect. If North states in an appeal that "he may well have adopted some other line, I would ask him to tell me a line that succeeds. If he can't, I would ask him to sit down on his own and study the hand for a while, then tell me if he can find a winning line. If it takes him, say, 20 minutes to discover the winning line, I might have to give him a rather novel slow play fine. After all, 20 minutes is a big chunk of a 7 board match. :) I would also check EW's CC to see what they lead from 108x, although I think this is a very minor point. In summary, without some evidence that isn't in Derrick's post, NS's chances do not look good IMO. 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 Aug 15 21:01:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB14415824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:01:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FB10t15820 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:01:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca374194 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:17:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-154.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.154]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Dodgy-MailRouter V2.9a 13/2838811); 13 Aug 2000 21:17:48 Message-ID: <006701c0057c$0ee5d200$66d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:12:32 +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 Wayne Burrows wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> +=+ I am not expecting these to be banned, >> certainly not if a solid suit is defined as >> A K Q J x x - 'weak' is 'a hand of less than >> average strength in HCP'. It may need a >> decision if a pair plays it as A K Q x x x x > >Or even AKJxxxxx. > >Excuse me but this definition is abject myopic nonsense. > >hcp simply do not define the strength of a bridge hand in any >'natural' sense. At best they are a simple guide to hand evaluation. > >AKJ1098765432 >x >- >- > >A 'weak' 6S opener. > >QJ2 >QJ2 >QJ2 >Q432 > >A strong (well not 'weak') 1NT. Grattan is quoting the definition in the WBF Systems Policy 2000. Does anyone know why the Rule of 15 and Rule of 18, which take distribution into account, were abandoned by the WBF about a decade ago? This is important to me because Australia's System Regulations still use these two superseded Rules, and I would like to know what is wrong with the two Rules, and why the WBF changed to the current definition of "weak". 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 Aug 15 21:01:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB1s415836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:01:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FB1lt15832 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:01:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (t1o993p84.telia.com [213.64.26.84]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA11419; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:24:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000801c00553$90b3c9a0$541a40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: , "derrick" Subject: SV: [BLML] Ruling from Singapore Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:22:50 -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 e7FB1ot15833 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >2NT explained as 2 suiter, at least 9 cards, probably minors > Sounds like a perfect explaination to me. No MI or damage in this solar system. Why are you asking? /Peter Swensson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 15 21:04:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB46e15859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:04:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f71.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FB3ut15855 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:03:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:30:56 -0700 Received: from 172.137.35.81 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.137.35.81] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Disclosure Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:30:56 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2000 17:30:56.0835 (UTC) FILETIME=[67963130:01C00615] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Todd Zimnoch > > Grattan (re 1963): > > >First, the definition of 'convention': "Any call or play which, by > > >agreement or understanding between partners, serves to > > >convey a meaning other than would be attributed to it by the > > >opponents in the absence of an explanation." > > > >.___________ \x/ __________ > > > > I'll also say that those 1963 laws are unreasonable in this day in > > age. They say that you can't use any system which your opponents > > are not also versed in. The time it takes to explain a system > > with a fair number of conventions is prohibitive to actually > > playing the game. It will continue to get worse. There should > > be some level of responsibility put on the opponents for making > > certain that they get themselves informed of whatever > > they deem important. > > >+=+ I would agree with 'unreasonable for universal >application' but I do believe it is reasonable for >regulators to establish differing degrees of the >level of complication that is acceptable amongst >players in different levels of competition. But the 1963 laws you quoted would not allow for this very well. The level of complication can be uniformly high or low, but you'll run into trouble when you have one contestant who is not as saavy as his opponents as he's still entitle to the complete explanation to which he has no previous exposure to help speed the process. > The definition of 'convention' is one that I >warm to. Better IMO than anything we amateurs >have achieved since. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have problems with the subjectivity of it and its relation to opponents. Specifically, as a convention becomes more popular and in widespread use by one's opponents, it ceases to be called a convention. Using that definition, one can easily make an argument that stayman and blackwood are not conventions since the conventional meanings of those bids are what your opponents expect. A question that came to my mind yesterday was whether the 1963 laws/regulations included provisions for alerts? It seems that if you have full, pre-play disclosure you would have no need for alerts. Where is the line between not being informed by your opponents and something being your own fault? In play of the hand, it's declarer's responsibility to check his opponents' carding methods for himself aside from any pre-alerts. If declarer fails to ask, he has no recourse for redress. This same standard does not appear to apply to bidding when it's opponents' responsibility to inform, but failing to inform may or may not be cause for redress. An alert is not allowed to wake the opponent up, just inform him. Consider: 1D - P - 1H(1) - 1S X(2)- 2S- P - 3S 4H - P - P - X(3) P - P - 5C - AP 1 - failure to alert 2 - alerted as 3 card heart support 3 - for reference later The failure to alert is that 1H only promises 3 cards in case the 1D bidder should play the eventual NT contract. The alert comes after 5C is passed out and the director is called before the play of the hand. Do you allow the doubler at 3 to change the call to a pass since he's now informed (woken up?) that the opponents are likely on a shakier heart fit? His hand is 6=5=2=0. The hand plays for 5C making, 4H-3. -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 Aug 15 21:05:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB5BG15873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FB54t15869 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:05 +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 NAA27076; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:17:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA01907; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:16:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000814132542.008d5c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:25:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] New - vanishing agreements Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello again to you all, and this recent thread about non-agreements makes me think of something else. In a very firm partnership, now over but 13 years long, we had agreed that 'All understandings about leads vanish when leading against slams, excepted that the Ace denies the King'. Signalling and discrading was unaffected. The reason for that one was to avoid giving away crucial information, of course. Whether it is a good idea or not is irrelevant. But the fact is that, when leading from a sequence, we could play either card, and so on. So, we _decided_ not to have any agreements. After what I've read those last days, I'm wondering whether this was legal ? Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 15 21:05:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB5Rx15885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FB5Nt15881 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from Debug (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA23048; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:22 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200008151105.VAA23048@acsys.anu.edu.au> To: "DerekMalloch" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: blml Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:22 Australia/NSW X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan Standard Edition v3.0.20 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Derek, et al > is blml off line to-day ? I have not had any correspondence from it , a bit > unusual Hmm - Sorry - it appears one of the disks on rgb filled up. That may have blocked sendmail accepting new messages. I haven't received any errors or other messages, so I'm not sure how long ago this happened. Now that it has plenty of space again it may quickly clear buffered messages around the globe.... (Be careful what you wish for :-) ) 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 Tue Aug 15 21:06:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB6nS15897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FB6Yt15893 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:06:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4pk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.52]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA09682; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00d201c00609$d8538b40$3413f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" Subject: Re: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:08:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I can only assume that Roger would be willing to play "Classic Bridge" unlike 99.9% of fellow ACBL members, or else has the good fortune (?) only to play with established partners in tournaments. The argument that pickup partners do not have adequate time to discuss every nuance of every bid is a valid one. I suspect the many people who play with partnership desk arranged partnerships are unwilling or unable to spend more than 15-20 minutes discussing system for a one day partnership. I know I feel that way. This aint broke...stop trying to fix it. There is nothing wrong with telling opponents that you have no agreement or undertanding other than general bridge knowledge if this is in fact the case. There is no requirement to provide opponents with more understanding of your bidding system than you have yourself. If your agreement is standard American with weak twos, Stayman, Blackwood, 5cM, Flannery, Brozel, Michaels and inverted minors and that is ALL you have discussed, then that is all they have the right to know. If you have no specific agreement about 1c/1n (6-9? 8-11?) and are guessing what partner might mean, no agreement is a fair description. Let's leave this alone. -----Original Message----- From: Roger Pewick >Much is made about it being terrible to mandate and enforce pairs fully >discussing their method before play so that they will be in a position >to meet the standard without excuses. It is claimed that it would make >casual partnerships [last second meetings] untenable and cause an exodus >from tournament. > >Well, nothing that I can see has been done that is close to >satisfactory. Maybe fair disclosure is the very last on the important >things list. The standards put to players get more demanding yet it has >been getting worse, not better. Just maybe the premise upon which the >rules are based is off target. > >Just maybe if players are given cause to realize that it is important to >know their system they would organize their time to meet their >obligation. I think that this is not the only condition but nothing >will work without it. And what is wrong with the league providing >players without the time to discuss with an alternative like one or two >standard systems [with standardized treatments] that they can pull out >and use until they get everything tied down. Certainly, on balance >their scores would be better than the hunt and peck, take an adjustment >here and there that comes with MI and UI creation. > >And for those who fail to meet their duty too often- would it not be >fairest to the field to enforce the simplest of League Standard Systems >upon them until they are ready to meet their obligation? > >Such an approach would deal with players problems. And isn't that what >the bridge authority is for? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 15 21:08:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FB8iU15913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:08:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FB8bt15909 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:08:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e7E9V7A08536; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:31:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e7E9V6I06118; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:31:06 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:31:06 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00865; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:31:05 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA12276; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:31:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:31:05 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200008140931.KAA12276@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, yanhoon@singnet.com.sg Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling from Singapore X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [hands snipped] > > Bidding: > E S W N > P 1NT* P 2C* > P 2D* P 2S > 2NT* 4S P P > P > > 1NT 10-12 HCP balanced (alertable here) > 2C INV enquiry > 2D shows 4 Hearts, denies 4 spades > 2NT explained as 2 suiter, at least 9 cards, probably minors > [play snipped] > > Questions: > How do you rule ? > If you rule MI, was there any damage and how would you adjust ? > > Disclosure: I was involved in the deal, there was a ruling and an appeal. > > Would appreciate you analysis. I don't expect EW to have firm agreements on this auction, I think West gave an accurate description of their agreements which was a close to accurate description of East's hand. No MI. No infraction. No adjustment. [ Herman will disagree: according to the HdW school there is MI because "2 suiter, at least 9 cards, probably minors" = "minor, at least 9 cards" ] Robin P.S. Please give auctions with W to the left of East, i.e. "W N E S", (because West is to the left of East in hand diagrams. -- 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 Tue Aug 15 21:13:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FBD4B15932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:13:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FBCvt15928 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:12:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17716; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA083714689; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:51:29 -0400 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:51:12 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy plays declarer's intended card. Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz 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 e7FBD1t15929 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: The original case: Declarer played the H10 towards AJxx, I played the King and declarer called for "a heart". Dummy pulled the HA. After a brief pause I said "I don't think that is what happened. ... Director please" The director determined with declarer's agreement that "a heart" had been called and ruled that a small heart was played. Given that there was no attempt to correct the designation of "a heart" are there any circumstances under which you would rule that the heart ace was played? The only possibility that I can think of is that declarer's failure to complain about the HA being played was some sort of implicit correction of her inadvertancy. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ I had to rule on a similar case some years ago and ruled: Law 45B: declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card Law 46B2: suit but not rank ..he is deemed to have called the lowest... So if declarer did not change his designation without pause for thought (45B4b)the lowest card is played and cannot be changed. He simply did not pay attention to the game and made a mistake. I send this to BLML and most agree. 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 Tue Aug 15 22:02:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FC1CD16010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:01:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7FC0wt16000 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21233 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2000 19:53:57 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 13 Aug 2000 19:53:57 -0000 Message-ID: <3996FD11.87AA0BC4@eduhi.at> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 21:54:57 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] full disclosure? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Teams, EW is a very experienced pair (they eventually won the tournament), NS seem to be - average (they finished 54th in a field of 97). I was called by declarer after he had gone one down in 5Sx. He had to play trumps xxxx A J32 KQT9x for one loser. When he asked EW about their count signals, he was told "normal count, hi-lo = even." E followed 3-2, and S took SQ on the second round. After the hand, NS examined opp's CC (they were using the WBF card, not the Austrian one; there is no extra space for trump signals on the Austrian card) and found "trump echo: hi-lo = odd". Declarer claims that he would have made the contract had he been told about the trump echo. EW said this was not a trump echo situation. S said he asked his question when playing trumps (which I tend to believe), E claims he asked at trick 1. As TD, I felt I had to decide for NS: Given the full information, this particular declarer would presumably have made his contract. The committee upheld my decision 2-1; the whole thing caused an uproar. Personally, I think a fair player can hardly be damaged in this situation; he would not expect anyone to signal at all. But if someone I don't know claims damage, do I have an option to believing him? Is it a fair claim by EW that trump echo is not a count signal at all, so when S asked about count signals they were in no position to tell him about their trump echo agreement? What if EW honestly don't think of how they signal in trumps when asked about count signals? What if NS believes - as in this case - that opp's would regularly signal count and would by sheer luck have succeeded had he had the full information? Please comment. Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 15 22:20:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FCKED16074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:20:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FCK0t16070 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:20:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id 1.14.7d3139b (4311); Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:19:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <14.7d3139b.26ca8f54@aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:19:32 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen To: GillP@bigpond.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 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/15/00 7:03:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, GillP@bigpond.com writes: > Does anyone know why the Rule of 15 and Rule of 18, which take > distribution into account, were abandoned by the WBF about a > decade ago? This is important to me because Australia's System > Regulations still use these two superseded Rules, and I would like > to know what is wrong with the two Rules, and why the WBF > changed to the current definition of "weak". > > Peter Gill > Australia. > To the best of my recollection they were not "abandoned." They were Rules that were established in some places (and still are used in some clubs in the USA that I know of) for defining opening bids versus psyches. They were not ever a part of the Laws, and the discussions in the ACBLLC and WBFLC that I attended simply made that point clear. Grattan may be better able to quote Edgar on those points. But, in Edgar's careful approach as to what the LC's would consider, these Rules were thought to be "not in conflict with the Laws" and not further discussed or blessed. Ginko biloba does help. 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 Aug 15 22:46:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FCjnq16110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:45:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FCjbt16106 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:45:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.55] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Nssh-00013Z-00; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:12:31 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c004fe$41910040$1a5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <017501c00339$0b8293e0$29de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000f01c00329$9113a4a0$aa5908c3@dodona> <004101c004f3$8275dbe0$a26860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:11:50 +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: Saturday, August 12, 2000 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ I am not expecting these to be banned, > > certainly not if a solid suit is defined as > > A K Q J x x - 'weak' is 'a hand of less than > > average strength in HCP'. It may need a > > decision if a pair plays it as A K Q x x x x > > Or even AKJxxxxx. > > Excuse me but this definition is abject myopic nonsense. > +=+ Hi Wayne I cannot help feeling that we will be more likely to attract sympathy for our opinions if we express them with moderation. No point in driving anyone out onto a limb. Not being in a position to make a decision in this, I am hoping to obtain one shortly. But it may have to wait until we get to Maastricht. My personal opinion is that the difficulties in defending A K Q J x x or A K Q x x x (x) or A K J x.x.x.(x.) have no material differences, so that it would be unreasonable for an opponent to cry 'foul'. This being so, I could find it possible to allow any of these deviations. But let us wait and see. In the meantime I imagine anyone aware of these words will prepare a defence rather than an argument. I owe everyone an apology, having woken up to the situation too late for it to be changed for Maastricht. I did suggest, but too late by any standard, that an average hand might be "one that in comparison with other hands is found to have about as many stronger than it as there are weaker". We might even get to a kind of Rule of '17'. ~ 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 Aug 15 22:47:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FClH116123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:47:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FCl9t16118 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13NtwD-0001pl-00; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:20:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c00507$b67c8e20$045408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:19:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 1:49 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding > Grattan (re 1963): > >First, the definition of 'convention': "Any call or play which, by > >agreement or understanding between partners, serves to > >convey a meaning other than would be attributed to it by the > >opponents in the absence of an explanation." > > .___________ \x/ __________ > > I'll also say that those 1963 laws are unreasonable in this day in age. > They say that you can't use any system which your opponents are not also > versed in. The time it takes to explain a system with a fair number of > conventions is prohibitive to actually playing the game. It will continue > to get worse. There should be some level of responsibility put on the > opponents for making certain that they get themselves informed of whatever > they deem important. > +=+ I would agree with 'unreasonable for universal application' but I do believe it is reasonable for regulators to establish differing degrees of the level of complication that is acceptable amongst players in different levels of competition. The definition of 'convention' is one that I warm to. Better IMO than anything we amateurs have achieved since. ~ 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 Aug 15 23:23:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FDMpf16163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:22:51 +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 e7FDMit16158 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:22:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Ntw9-0001pl-00; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 10:20:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c00507$b495ccc0$045408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <017501c00339$0b8293e0$29de36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000f01c00329$9113a4a0$aa5908c3@dodona> <004101c004f3$8275dbe0$a26860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:31:09 +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: bridge-laws Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > AKJ1098765432 > x > - > - > > A 'weak' 6S opener. > +=+ Or maybe 4NT? with cue responses? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 00:13:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FEDMi16213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:13:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FEDFt16209 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:13:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA29547 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA07153 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:13:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008151413.KAA07153@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] question on question and answer about discarding X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >First, the definition of 'convention': "Any call or play which, by > > >agreement or understanding between partners, serves to > > >convey a meaning other than would be attributed to it by the > > >opponents in the absence of an explanation." > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The definition of 'convention' is one that I > warm to. Better IMO than anything we amateurs > have achieved since. To me it looks like "I know one when I see one," being (as someone else pointed out) highly dependent on what the opponents expect. In particular, takeout doubles seem not to be conventions, and the Polish 1C opening is a convention in Boston and London but not in Warsaw (if I have understood Konrad correctly). Perhaps this is desirable from the regulator's point of view because it makes everything subject to regulation, but if that's the desire, why not just say so? "The SO may regulate bidding and play agreements," may not be favored by everyone (Count me against.), but we can all understand 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 Wed Aug 16 00:28:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FER0n16227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:27:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FEQrt16223 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:26:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA07961 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:26:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 15 16:27:32 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JT07HWCS4C000B2B@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:26:47 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:24:16 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 16:26:46 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Wayne Burrows , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B687@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 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ I am not expecting these to be banned, > > > certainly not if a solid suit is defined as > > > A K Q J x x - 'weak' is 'a hand of less than > > > average strength in HCP'. It may need a > > > decision if a pair plays it as A K Q x x x x > > > > Or even AKJxxxxx. > > > > Excuse me but this definition is abject myopic nonsense. > > > +=+ Hi Wayne > I cannot help feeling that we will be more > likely to attract sympathy for our opinions if we > express them with moderation. No point in > driving anyone out onto a limb. That probably is not Wayne's intention, but just saying 'wrong' here doesn't express how wrong this defintion of an average hand is. On the other hand this is so obvious that nobody can take it serious, and thus no harm can be done. I remember to have informed Grattan about the absurdity of this definition a long time ago and then I accepted his remark that nothing could be done for the moment. 'Accepted' for two reasons, the first the one above: 'it doesn't harm', the second it not being my responsibility. Still willing to help, my suggestion is not to define 'average hand' at all, the meaning being clear to everybody and discovering that defining it is rather difficult when I tried. Grattan's own suggestion seems wrong to me from a statistical point of view. I came to the following and like to know your opinion about it: An average hand is one of the four hands in which a deck is dealt without players showing preference for any of those four hands. The reason I didn't like it is that one of those hands has a 4 card spades and I prefer that one myself then. More liberal is the second: A hand that would be opened 1NT in a system where 1NT shows 9-11 points. I know, not acceptable for most of you, but still not too bad from a practical point of view. And not a description for which Wayne feels obliged to use: 'abject myopic nonsense'. Tell me, what does it 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 Wed Aug 16 00:54:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FEqqg16262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:52:52 +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 e7FEqjt16258 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:52:46 +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 KAA01020 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA07275 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 10:52:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008151452.KAA07275@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > I came to the following and like to know your opinion about it: > An average hand is one of the four hands in which a deck is dealt without > players showing preference for any of those four hands. As you say, it isn't easy! But for _regulatory purposes_, is there anything terribly wrong with defining "hand strength" as high card points plus length of two longest suits? Then an average hand is "Rule of 18," 10 HCP and 4432 distribution. This makes any hand with AKQxxxx an average hand (18 if 7222) but AKJxxxx xx xx xx is slightly below average (17). Make the side distribution better, though, and the hand becomes average or above. This isn't perfect, but at least it is simple, unambiguous, and not ridiculous (as far as I can tell). If you wanted to improve this, you could use a better point count, say 4.5, 3, 1.5, 0.75, 0.25 for AKQJT. I doubt the improvement is worth the complexity. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 03:53:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FHpZr16393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:51:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7FHpRt16389 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA22243 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:51:22 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:51:22 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] full disclosure? In-Reply-To: <3996FD11.87AA0BC4@eduhi.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fools rush in where angels fear to tread... I'll take a stab at this one: On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: [snip] > > xxxx > A J32 > KQT9x > > for one loser. When he asked EW about their count signals, he was told > "normal count, hi-lo = even." E followed 3-2, and S took SQ on the > second round. > After the hand, NS examined opp's CC (they were using the WBF card, not > the Austrian one; there is no extra space for trump signals on the > Austrian card) and found "trump echo: hi-lo = odd". I don't know what is standard in Austria. In the USA, there is no case for an adjustment. "Normal count" here means hi-lo=even *in side suits* while in trumps an echo shows exactly three in some people's textbooks, or a desire for a ruff (whether 3 or 4) in others. A trump echo to show an even number is found only among rank beginners who haven't yet been taught that trump signals are different from plain-suit signals. (I suppose maybe some of the pairs that play upside-down everything use hi-lo=even in trumps, though I haven't seen it personally. But that isn't normal carding in the first place.) Maybe strictly speaking EW's answer was slightly incomplete. But if declarer asks "about count signals", he should expect a reply about (side suit) count signals, and if he asks "about trump echoes", he should expect a reply about (possibly count-showing) trump echoes. I, for instance, play a modified Smith Echo with my regular partner; if I am asked about my count signals I wouldn't gratuitously volunteer the information that my trump echo was something strange, and would consider it an infraction to do so, in fact. I would be shocked to hear someone accuse me of making him misplay the trump suit when he asked about something that had nothing to do with the play of the trump suit. 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 Wed Aug 16 04:01:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FHxrH16408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:59:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FHxnt16404 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:59:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa492016 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:59:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-187.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.187]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Missionary-MailRouter V2.9 5/2145880); 16 Aug 2000 03:59:32 Message-ID: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:55:48 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: Ton Kooijman wrote: >> I came to the following and like to know your opinion about it: >> An average hand is one of the four hands in which a deck is dealt >> without players showing preference for any of those four hands. > >As you say, it isn't easy! > >But for _regulatory purposes_, is there anything terribly wrong with >defining "hand strength" as high card points plus length of two longest >suits? Then an average hand is "Rule of 18," 10 HCP and 4432 >distribution. > >This makes any hand with AKQxxxx an average hand (18 if 7222) >but AKJxxxx xx xx xx is slightly below average (17). My preference is to modify the existing WBF Definition of "Weak" by adding "Length Points" to it. Thus when assessing an average hand, add 1 HCP per card greater than four in any suit, e.g add 3 for a seven card suit, add 2 for two five card suits. This is simple, sensible and solves the absurdities which Wayne Burrows so colourfully demonstrated. I also think that Wayne's choice of words helped propel us into an interesting discussion of "more appropriate definitions". In practice my idea may have problems which I haven't fully thought about yet, e.g an 8-11 anchorless multi with 6+ cards would no longer be a BSC, so it might encourage some "system creators who maximise what they can get away with" to use 8-11 multis. But I doubt it. I think my idea is much better than the existing WBF System Policy and is "best of a bad bunch" of alternatives so far. I have heard that the "solid suit 3D opener" has already been approved by the President of the WBF Systems Committee, so logic and commonsense have justly prevailed over application of regulations. By the way, some enterprising bridge teachers in Sydney include Length Points when teaching HCP to beginners, with enormous success. So maybe all us old fogeys on BLML simply are behind the times by not thinking in terms of Length Points. 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 Aug 16 04:18:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FIGtO16431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 04:16:55 +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 e7FIGnt16427 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 04:16:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.111] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13OE29-000JjC-00; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:47:41 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c005bb$92eb6ee0$6f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "marilyn" , "Linda Trent" Subject: [BLML] Culture Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:39:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 06:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.211] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13On7p-000IQ7-00; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c006f5$a6119c20$d35408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Solid suit opening - Maastricht Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:55:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 06:16:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.211] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13On7r-000IQ7-00; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:15:56 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c006f5$a7168900$d35408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: <14.7d3139b.26ca8f54@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:14:23 +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: ; Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > > To the best of my recollection they were not "abandoned." They were Rules > that were established in some places (and still are used in some clubs in the > USA that I know of) for defining opening bids versus psyches. They were not > ever a part of the Laws, and the discussions in the ACBLLC and WBFLC that I > attended simply made that point clear. Grattan may be better able to quote > Edgar on those points. But, in Edgar's careful approach as to what the LC's > would consider, these Rules were thought to be "not in conflict with the > Laws" and not further discussed or blessed. > +=+ The early history of the 'Rule of 18', then modified to 'Rule of 19' in some places - and even later used somewhere to value stronger hands (? Rule of 23) - may have begun in Austria. At any rate it was Karl Rohan who introduced it into a European Systems Policy from which, as I recall, the WBF took some ideas and developed them for its own purposes. These 'Rules' were never other than a method of evaluation of hands combining High Card values with distribution. Edgar was happy enough with the method, but decidedly unhappy when it was used to set standards for natural opening bids - other methods also had preceded it in this - because he considered it an evil to attempt to tell players what their standards should be for natural openers. He conceded eventually the additional words in Law 40D. Meanwhile the 'Rules' have drifted out of use in some Conditions of Contest, even when dealing with psychic action, especially where the regulating authority avoids defining a psychic except by reference to the partnership's announced agreements. But the method is still perfectly good if NBOs etc wish to use it for purposes of which the laws allow. ~ 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 Aug 16 07:32:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FLVu516590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:31:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com [139.134.5.197]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7FLVqt16586 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:31:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da252775 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:31:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-181.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.181]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Gentle-MailRouter V2.9 11/4095933); 16 Aug 2000 07:31:43 Message-ID: <003901c00764$5d838bc0$ebe036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] full disclosure? Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:27:59 +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 Gordon Bower wrote: >Fools rush in where angels fear to tread... I'll take a stab at this one: Thanks. I was a bit reluctant to have the first stab. Your post gave me the idea of scanning the *Signals (including Trumps)* section of 26 WBF CCs which I happen to have on my desk. They are the CCs of half the pairs in Australia's section of the Olympiad in Maastricht (i.e. a fairly random sample). Sorry Gordon, the news is not all good.... >Petrus Schuster wrote: [snip by GB] and [reinserted by PG] >>Teams, EW is a very experienced pair (they eventually won the >>tournament), NS seem to be - average (they finished 54th of 97.... >>EW said this was not a trump echo situation. S said he asked >>his question when playing trumps (which I tend to believe), E >>claims he asked at trick 1. My limited knowledge of the unusual nature of memory (which was increased by a TV documentary tonight) suggests that it is more likely that the questioner would have accurate recall of the timing of the question than that the answerer would. >>As TD, I felt I had to decide for NS: Given the full information, this >>particular declarer would presumably have made his contract. The >>committee upheld my decision 2-1; the whole thing caused an uproar. >>Personally, I think a fair player can hardly be damaged in this >>situation; he would not expect anyone to signal at all. But if someone >>I don't know claims damage, do I have an option to believing him? >>Is it a fair claim by EW that trump echo is not a count signal at all, >>so when S asked about count signals they were in no position to >>tell him about their trump echo agreement? What if EW honestly >>don't think of how they signal in trumps when asked about count >> signals? Which may well have been exactly what happened. An unfortunate mixup. Whether or not this absolves EW is interesting. >>What if NS believes - as in this case - that opp's would regularly >>signal count and would by sheer luck have succeeded had he >>had the full information? A persuasive argument, IMO. >> xxxx >> A J32 >> KQT9x >> >> for one loser. When he asked EW about their count signals, he was >> told "normal count, hi-lo = even." E followed 3-2, and S took SQ on >> the second round. After the hand, NS examined opp's CC (they >> were using the WBF card, not the Austrian one; there is no extra >> space for trump signals on the Austrian card) and found >> "trump echo: hi-lo = odd". > >I don't know what is standard in Austria. In the USA, there is no >case for an adjustment. "Normal count" here means hi-lo=even >*in side suits* while in trumps an echo shows exactly three in >some people's textbooks, or a desire for a ruff (whether 3 or 4) >in others. A trump echo to show an even number is found only >among rank beginners who haven't yet been taught that trump >signals are different from plain-suit signals. Mmm, "only" you say. Let's quote from the Maastricht CC of two Americans called Larry Cohen and Dave Berkowitz: "Signals (including Trumps): Hi-Lo usually even count" !!!!!!!!!!! It's OK, Gordon - it might be a misprint (there are at least two other possible misprints on their CC) and if you want to catch up to me in the "egg-on-face on BLML" department, you still have a long way to go :) By the way, LC-DB use Normal Count throughout. One other pair (from Romania) play Normal Count in both trumps and side suits, according to their CC. Romania is not far from Austria. >(I suppose maybe some of the pairs that play upside-down >everything use hi-lo=even in trumps, though I haven't seen it >personally. Nor have I. >... Maybe strictly speaking EW's answer was slightly incomplete. >But if declarer asks "about count signals", he should expect a reply >about (side suit) count signals, and if he asks "about trump echoes", >he should expect a reply about (possibly count-showing) trump echoes. I'm not convinced that this is correct. Although there is a good analogy in the bidding: if NS ask you "what are your two-openings?" and you reply "weak" then you'd be a bit shocked if NS assume your 2C is weak. I think that the context is vital: if 2C has been bid (or if trumps have been led), the answer to the question should reflect the context. >I, for instance, play a modified Smith Echo with my regular partner; >if I am asked about my count signals I wouldn't gratuitously volunteer >the information that my trump echo was something strange, and >would consider it an infraction to do so, in fact. I would be shocked >to hear someone accuse me of making him misplay the trump suit >when he asked about something that had nothing to do with the >play of the trump suit. > Yes this is a good point. The issue is: who stuffed it up: - NS by asking the wrong question, or - EW by giving the wrong answer? The results of my analysis, which could be described as EW's peers since EW won the event: TRUMP SIGNALS Reverse Count 5 Rev Ct (plus other meanings too) 6 Normal Count 2 Other meanings (S/P, want ruff) 2 Not mentioned 11 Which doesn't tell us much really - but does suggest either that NS's interpretation is not illogical, or that up to two pairs filling in CCs for the Olympiad found the online CC process gruelling. My personal guess at this one is that the question and the answer were both flawed. Based on the information in Petrus's post, I would proably adjust the score, although with some concern that it is very commonplace to answer the question exactly as EW did. I regard myself as a hardliner on punishing pairs who answer questions inadequately, and would expect the softer Directors to go easy on EW because EW's answer was exactly the same as what I might have said myself ("might" not *would*). As Petrus pointed out, the timing of the question is a crucial element here. EW's argument about it not being a trump echo situation seems "self-serving" in the DWS sense of the word, because if this wasn't an echo situation, then why wasn't their CC more accurate - in other words either they haven't filled in their CC very well or they're misleading the Director. Peter Gill Australia. PS: Anyone who interprets this post as suggesting that the author of LOTT is a "rank beginner" has misunderstood me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 09:27:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7FNQ2J16659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:26:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7FNPvt16655 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:25:57 +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 JAA14360 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:22:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:22:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] New - vanishing agreements To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:24:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 16/08/2000 09:19:56 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My partner and I have the agreement that after 1NT-2C-2H, a 2S rebid is *non-systemic*. However, just such a sequence occurred on Monday. We now have the implicit agreement that a 2S bid shows that pard meant to pull the 2NT card from the bidding box :-) 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 Wed Aug 16 16:54:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7G6q2K16889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:52:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7G6ptt16885 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:51:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28571 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2000 06:51:16 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 16 Aug 2000 06:51:16 -0000 Message-ID: <399A3A20.650CE03D@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:52:16 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling from Singapore References: <39998ACB.60F7B9BD@eduhi.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk derrick schrieb: > > Hi to all > > Would appreciate your opinions on the following: > > Team of 4 (7 board match) > > Dealer E > None vul > S Q8753 > H AK > D KJ3 > C 952 > S A962 S K > H Q4 H T8732 > D T52 D Q8764 > C JT83 C K7 > S JT4 > H J965 > D A9 > C AQ64 > > Bidding: > E S W N > P 1NT* P 2C* > P 2D* P 2S > 2NT* 4S P P > P > > 1NT 10-12 HCP balanced (alertable here) > 2C INV enquiry > 2D shows 4 Hearts, denies 4 spades > > 2NT explained as 2 suiter, at least 9 cards, probably minors > > Contract: 4S by N Still, it would be nice to know *what* agreements EW have in this situation. I guess they have agreed something like "2NT in competition shows a 5-4 2-suiter or better" and W has applied his bridge logic when he added "probably minors". In that case, I would also rule "No MI, score stands". cheers Petrus P.S. I have a network problem; if it got sent the first time, sorry. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 17:12:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7G7Bnw16917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:11:49 +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 e7G7Bft16913 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:11:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13OxMN-000PIk-00; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c00751$3fe9b480$0f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Peter Gill" References: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:09:58 +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 To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > Steve Willner wrote: > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >> I came to the following and like to know your opinion about it: > >> An average hand is one of the four hands in which a deck is dealt > >> without players showing preference for any of those four hands. > > > >As you say, it isn't easy! > > > >But for _regulatory purposes_, is there anything terribly wrong with > >defining "hand strength" as high card points plus length of two longest > >suits? Then an average hand is "Rule of 18," 10 HCP and 4432 > >distribution. > > > >This makes any hand with AKQxxxx an average hand (18 if 7222) > >but AKJxxxx xx xx xx is slightly below average (17). > > > My preference is to modify the existing WBF Definition of "Weak" > by adding "Length Points" to it. Thus when assessing an average > hand, add 1 HCP per card greater than four in any suit, e.g add 3 > for a seven card suit, add 2 for two five card suits. This is simple, > sensible and solves the absurdities which Wayne Burrows so > colourfully demonstrated. I also think that Wayne's choice of words > helped propel us into an interesting discussion of "more appropriate > definitions". > +=+ As a personal opinion I think that for the purpose of the WBF Systems Policy it would be better if the reference to 'less than average' were removed and substituted by "any hand that corresponds to the 'Rule of 16' (total of sixteen when the number of cards in the two longest suits is added to the number of High Card Points) or less". It seems to me that we should be directing our gaze at the class of hands to which the regulation is to apply, rather that to the class of hands to which it will not apply. More positive, but something for the future. ~ 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 Aug 16 18:06:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7G86TF16964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:06:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7G86Jt16960 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from eduhi.at ([10.216.2.52]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05325 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:01:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <399A4BAC.B57F0686@eduhi.at> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:07:08 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] full disclosure Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch schrieb: > Consider: > > 1D - P - 1H(1) - 1S > X(2)- 2S- P - 3S > 4H - P - P - X(3) > P - P - 5C - AP > > 1 - failure to alert > 2 - alerted as 3 card heart support > 3 - for reference later > > The failure to alert is that 1H only promises 3 cards in case the 1D bidder > should play the eventual NT contract. The alert comes after 5C is passed > out and the director is called before the play of the hand. Do you allow > the doubler at 3 to change the call to a pass since he's now informed (woken > up?) that the opponents are likely on a shakier heart fit? His hand is > 6=5=2=0. The hand plays for 5C making, 4H-3. No. L21B1; his partner has subsequently called. However, he has a good case for a score adjustment (L21B3/L40C). cheers Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 18:32:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7G8Vjh16984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:31:45 +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 e7G8VYt16979 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA11965 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:31:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 16 10:32:13 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JT19DQ7JL6000BU5@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:31:28 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:28:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:31:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Bridge Laws , Peter Gill Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B689@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 16 augustus 2000 9:10 > Aan: Bridge Laws; Peter Gill > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "An unalterable and unquestioned law of the > musical world required that the German text > of French operas sung by Swedish artists > should be translated into Italian for the clearer > understanding of English speaking audiences" > (Edith Wharton) > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter Gill > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 6:55 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > > > Steve Willner wrote: > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > >> I came to the following and like to know your opinion about it: > > >> An average hand is one of the four hands in which a deck is dealt > > >> without players showing preference for any of those four hands. > > > > > >As you say, it isn't easy! > > > > > >But for _regulatory purposes_, is there anything terribly > wrong with > > >defining "hand strength" as high card points plus length > of two longest > > >suits? Then an average hand is "Rule of 18," 10 HCP and 4432 > > >distribution. > > > > > >This makes any hand with AKQxxxx an average hand (18 if 7222) > > >but AKJxxxx xx xx xx is slightly below average (17). > > > > > > My preference is to modify the existing WBF Definition of "Weak" > > by adding "Length Points" to it. Thus when assessing an average > > hand, add 1 HCP per card greater than four in any suit, e.g add 3 > > for a seven card suit, add 2 for two five card suits. This > is simple, > > sensible and solves the absurdities which Wayne Burrows so > > colourfully demonstrated. I also think that Wayne's choice of words > > helped propel us into an interesting discussion of "more appropriate > > definitions". > > > +=+ As a personal opinion I think that for the > purpose of the WBF Systems Policy it would > be better if the reference to 'less than average' > were removed and substituted by "any hand > that corresponds to the 'Rule of 16' (total of > sixteen when the number of cards in the two > longest suits is added to the number of High > Card Points) or less". It seems to me that > we should be directing our gaze at the class > of hands to which the regulation is to apply, > rather that to the class of hands to which it > will not apply. More positive, but something > for the future. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > Reasonable approach, but we should try for a relation between 'weak' and 'average'. If for example a 4333 9-count is considered average ( and that might be an acceptable choice ) the top for the weak hands should be based on 'rule of 15'. Furthermore the laws speak about 'a K ore more below average' and it might be wise to link weak to that description, bringing in more consistency in the general approach. Am I allowed to say that all this needs some more consideration? 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 Aug 16 19:13:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7G9Btk17023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:11:55 +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.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 e7G9Bnt17019 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:11:50 +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 <20000816091144.AQM9362.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:11:44 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:12:42 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <39914B98.8728873C@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > So is Golf. > Which has even more rules than bridge. > No doubt there is a golf-lml. Nah - golf did it right in the first place :-) THe rules book is just about the same size as our Law book... But - they were smart enough to compile a Decisions book (a large tome) over many years and that thing has just about everything in it... Not many things come up, but when they do, they are plenty bizarre.... In fact, a couple weeks ago my weekly golf magazine had an interesting cover story re: whether there should be two sets of rules - and they say a resounding NO - keep one set of rules and always work toward raising the integrity of the lower games to the top.... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 20:54:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GAsCi17089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:54:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta01.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GAs7t17085 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.34.197.91]) by mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20000816105406.XKHX28276.mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:54:06 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000816171912.007ad100@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:19:12 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From today's duplicate: Nil Vul Dlr South 6 4 J 8 7 6 2 7 6 A K Q 8 Q 10 8 7 3 10 5 A 3 K Q 10 Q 8 4 3 A 9 5 2 4 3 J 9 6 5 A K J 2 9 5 4 K J 10 10 7 2 Bidding South West North East 1C 1S ....2H all pass South's 1C "could be short", North hesitated for some time before bidding 2H. East claimed that South was alerted to 'something' by North's hesitation and passed a forcing bid. South claimed he was minimum, and hoped West might rebid spades. Result 2H +3, for 80% score. Most pairs in 4H down 1, but some in NT also failing. What does North's hesitation suggest (only 4 cards? or less than 10 points?} If I disallow South's pass, do I have to adjust to 4H -1? Thanks, 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 Wed Aug 16 21:05:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GB3lI17106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:03:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GB3ft17102 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:03:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id t.71.5d702e3 (17081); Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:03:21 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A To: ltrent@home.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 119 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a message dated 8/16/00 5:18:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ltrent@home.com writes: > ..........always work toward raising the > integrity of the lower games to the top.... > > Linda > Hear, hear......! 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 Wed Aug 16 21:13:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GBDaa17123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:13:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GBDQt17119 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.58]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14591 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:13:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <399A6D7A.6EBD5E43@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:31:22 +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] Re: Brown stickers seen References: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000401c00751$3fe9b480$0f5408c3@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 ================================= > "An unalterable and unquestioned law of the > musical world required that the German text > of French operas sung by Swedish artists > should be translated into Italian for the clearer > understanding of English speaking audiences" > (Edith Wharton) great quote ! > > > +=+ As a personal opinion I think that for the > purpose of the WBF Systems Policy it would > be better if the reference to 'less than average' > were removed and substituted by "any hand > that corresponds to the 'Rule of 16' (total of > sixteen when the number of cards in the two > longest suits is added to the number of High > Card Points) or less". It seems to me that > we should be directing our gaze at the class > of hands to which the regulation is to apply, > rather that to the class of hands to which it > will not apply. More positive, but something > for the future. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > I have long since favoured that approach. Let the Regulation makers define a simple boundary, and write the law as such : Systems which break the "Law of 16" are banned. We consider any opening on a hand that does not suit the "Law of 16", but is made intentionally as such, to be systemic and thus banned. It may make for some silly borderline cases, but at least it is clear and a player knows what he can do. The period in Belgium when the Rule of 18 was applied strictly was the one in which we had the least problems (about rulings). People thought the rule was silly, but never the TD's application of it. But in the end most people just counted their points and did not open. -- 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 Aug 16 22:53:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GCpLa17241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:51:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GCpEt17237 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:51:15 +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 OAA08594; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:49:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA08800; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:50:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000816150012.008c6100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:00:12 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000816171912.007ad100@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:19 16/08/00 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: >>From today's duplicate: > >Nil Vul >Dlr South 6 4 > J 8 7 6 2 > 7 6 > A K Q 8 > > Q 10 8 7 3 10 5 > A 3 K Q 10 > Q 8 4 3 A 9 5 2 > 4 3 J 9 6 5 > > A K J 2 > 9 5 4 > K J 10 > 10 7 2 > >Bidding > South West North East > 1C 1S ....2H all pass > >South's 1C "could be short", North hesitated for some time before bidding 2H. >East claimed that South was alerted to 'something' by North's hesitation and >passed a forcing bid. South claimed he was minimum, and hoped West might >rebid >spades. >Result 2H +3, for 80% score. Most pairs in 4H down 1, but some in NT also >failing. > >What does North's hesitation suggest (only 4 cards? or less than 10 points?} >If I disallow South's pass, do I have to adjust to 4H -1? AG : first look at their convention card. If their 2H bid is systematically nonforcing (ca 7-10 HCP), you rule as failure to alert, but N/S bidding is otherwise exempt from sin (perhaps North hesitated between 2H and a Sputnik double, but hesitating is allowed). If 2H is systematically forcing, it seems obvious that North's tempo gave away UI, for otherwise why would South pass ? (North could have AKxxx H and AKQx C, couldn't he ?) Even without the slow bid, I would feel very suspicious of a player who passes a forcing bid just when it suits the hand. This is very much like a fielded psyche. Well, if he says he forgot 2H was forcing, don't beleive him, but it could happen in some more obscure cases, as I saw not long ago : North South x KQJx AKxx Jx Qxx xx KQxxx AJxxx N S 1C 1H 1S 3C pass North, spreading his hand "hey, it's forcing" South : "forcing , how could it be ?" N/S indeed played 3C as forcing, but this is by no means universal. They scored a near top. Sheer luck, and of course no redress for E/W, for what evidence is there that N/S illegally knew it would be good for them to stop at the 3-level on 26 HCP and a huge fit ? In the case you display, unless South was a beginner who could possibly be unaware that 2H was forcing, the evidence is opposite. Bot how on Earth could they make 11 tricks ? I hope E/W have good explanations to give, else I could well rule that they wouldn't have beaten 4H. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 16 23:32:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GDVuk17272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:31:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GDVqt17268 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:31:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ja475731 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:31:48 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-117.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.117]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Shocking-MailRouter V2.9a 13/4335574); 16 Aug 2000 23:31:47 Message-ID: <004b01c007ea$7b6a9c60$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:27:57 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote in the Parent thread called "Re: Brown stickers seen": >>Grattan Endicott wrote: >> +=+ As a personal opinion I think that for the >> purpose of the WBF Systems Policy it would >> be better if the reference to 'less than average' >> were removed and substituted by "any hand >> that corresponds to the 'Rule of 16' (total of >> sixteen when the number of cards in the two >> longest suits is added to the number of High >> Card Points) or less". It seems to me that >> we should be directing our gaze at the class >> of hands to which the regulation is to apply, >> rather that to the class of hands to which it >> will not apply. More positive, but something >> for the future. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > >Reasonable approach, but we should try for a relation >between 'weak' and 'average'. If for example a 4333 >9-count is considered average ( and that might be an >acceptable choice ) the top for the weak hands should >be based on 'rule of 15'. Furthermore the laws speak >about 'a K ore more below average' and it might be >wise to link weak to that description, bringing in more >consistency in the general approach. Am I allowed to >say that all this needs some more consideration? Yes indeed. This all need a lot more consideration. Compared to "fine tuning the words in the Laws", this gaping hole in the way bridge is administered can have serious consequences, e.g the undesirable pre-Maastricht experience of last minute changes to the Systems Policy after the submission of CCs. IMO the BLML being about 250 of the finest brains in the bridge world (?) is a good place to try to find an intelligent way to define "Weak". Since many NBOs do copy WBF Regulations, it is IMO worth discussing how to improve the WBF Systems Regulations, even if it is not very relevant to one Zone (North America). The Rules of 15 and 16 in the past were used as a guide to the MINIMUM permissible strength of an opening. The current WBF Definition of "Weak" however has NO minimum strength requirement, and only provides a definition of the MAXIMUM strength of a "Weak" hand, in order to distinguish "Weak" and non-Weak hands. Hence the mass of CCs for Maastricht which require a minimum of 0HCP for weak two and three openings. Grattan seems to be saying that moving back to a minimum requirement is "something for the future". I don't know what Grattan means above by the word "corresponds", but it seems that Grattan's Rule of 16 would prohibit opening 2S on KQJ1098, xx, xx, xxx (6+6+3=15, <16) - oops. A "Rule of 15" is also no good as it bans opening 3C on xx, xx, xx, AJ109876. (5+ 7+2=14, <15). And rules with lots of exceptions would be a bit silly. Ton's suggestion that "the top for the weak hands should be based on 'rule of 15' " does not survive scrutiny e.g it would make x, xx, QJxxx, QJxxx (6+5+5=16, >15) too strong to be a weak hand! I am not sure whether Grattan is discussing "a minimum strength for Weak" while Ton is discussing the altogether different 'maximum strength for Weak'. Whatever, it demonstrates that this area requires a lot more thought. My opinion is that the current WBF Systems Policy is appallingly inadequate, and that Rules of 15,16 or whatever are not the solution. 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 Aug 17 00:17:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GEH4D17308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:17:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GEGut17304 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id QAA27292 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:16:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 16 16:17:34 2000 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JT1LFXQDAU000C9X@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:16:51 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:14:20 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:16:49 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" To: "'Peter Gill'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B68F@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 Yes I agree, rules of ** seem inadequate But your statement that 3C with less than '15' is not allowed seems wrong to me. The definition of weak is important for brown sticker conventions, where WEAK openings are not allowed if there is no anchor suit (it is somewhat more complicated, but this suffices for the discussion). So when we want to define 'weak' we need to know the consequences. If we want the restrictions to be severe, not allowing 3C with un unknown AKJxxxx, the line should be put high and vice versa. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Peter Gill [mailto:GillP@bigpond.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 17 augustus 2000 3:28 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" > > > Ton Kooijman wrote in the Parent thread called > "Re: Brown stickers seen": > >>Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ As a personal opinion I think that for the > >> purpose of the WBF Systems Policy it would > >> be better if the reference to 'less than average' > >> were removed and substituted by "any hand > >> that corresponds to the 'Rule of 16' (total of > >> sixteen when the number of cards in the two > >> longest suits is added to the number of High > >> Card Points) or less". It seems to me that > >> we should be directing our gaze at the class > >> of hands to which the regulation is to apply, > >> rather that to the class of hands to which it > >> will not apply. More positive, but something > >> for the future. ~ Grattan ~ +=+. > > > >Reasonable approach, but we should try for a relation > >between 'weak' and 'average'. If for example a 4333 > >9-count is considered average ( and that might be an > >acceptable choice ) the top for the weak hands should > >be based on 'rule of 15'. Furthermore the laws speak > >about 'a K ore more below average' and it might be > >wise to link weak to that description, bringing in more > >consistency in the general approach. Am I allowed to > >say that all this needs some more consideration? > > > Yes indeed. This all need a lot more consideration. > > Compared to "fine tuning the words in the Laws", this > gaping hole in the way bridge is administered can have > serious consequences, e.g the undesirable pre-Maastricht > experience of last minute changes to the Systems Policy > after the submission of CCs. IMO the BLML being about > 250 of the finest brains in the bridge world (?) is a good > place to try to find an intelligent way to define "Weak". > > Since many NBOs do copy WBF Regulations, it is IMO worth > discussing how to improve the WBF Systems Regulations, > even if it is not very relevant to one Zone (North America). > > The Rules of 15 and 16 in the past were used as a guide to > the MINIMUM permissible strength of an opening. The > current WBF Definition of "Weak" however has NO minimum > strength requirement, and only provides a definition of the > MAXIMUM strength of a "Weak" hand, in order to distinguish > "Weak" and non-Weak hands. Hence the mass of CCs for > Maastricht which require a minimum of 0HCP for weak two > and three openings. > > Grattan seems to be saying that moving back to a minimum > requirement is "something for the future". I don't know what > Grattan means above by the word "corresponds", but it seems > that Grattan's Rule of 16 would prohibit opening 2S on > KQJ1098, xx, xx, xxx (6+6+3=15, <16) - oops. A "Rule of 15" > is also no good as it bans opening 3C on xx, xx, xx, AJ109876. > (5+ 7+2=14, <15). And rules with lots of exceptions would be > a bit silly. > > Ton's suggestion that "the top for the weak hands should > be based on 'rule of 15' " does not survive scrutiny e.g it > would make x, xx, QJxxx, QJxxx (6+5+5=16, >15) too > strong to be a weak hand! I am not sure whether Grattan > is discussing "a minimum strength for Weak" while Ton > is discussing the altogether different 'maximum strength > for Weak'. Whatever, it demonstrates that this area requires > a lot more thought. > > My opinion is that the current WBF Systems Policy is > appallingly inadequate, and that Rules of 15,16 or > whatever are not the solution. > > 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 Thu Aug 17 00:45:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GEivA17326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:44:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GEirt17322 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:44:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua632080 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:40:16 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-213.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.213]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ecumenical-MailRouter V2.9 9/12083456); 17 Aug 2000 00:40:15 Message-ID: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:36:14 +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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Tony Musgrove from Australia wrote (original post at end): >>...........Result 2H +3 >But how on Earth could they make 11 tricks ? ----------- Cultural differences, Alain. In Australia, '+3' means "making nine tricks", not *making three overtricks*. Alain, you do realise that Australia is "on Earth"? :) I would adjust to 4H -1, on the grounds that without the UI (South's hesitation suggesting minimal values IMO), 2H - 3H - 4H is both likely and at all probable. I would adjust (even more gently) even if South in a nice friendly club game was a beginner who had no idea what was happening. If you adjust the score, you don't have to adjust to 4H -1. It's almost as likely that South might bid 2NT, passed out, also down one, losing six red tricks. To adjust to 3H making three (2H - 2NT - 3C - 3H - Pass, or 2H - 3H - Pass) or to adjust to 3D making by EW on a heart lead would both be inferior judgement IMO. To adjust to 3NT down two would IMO be unreasonably harsh. Peter Gill Australia. Tony Musgrove wrote: >>From today's duplicate: >> >>Dlr South Nil Vul >> 6 4 >> J 8 7 6 2 >> 7 6 >> A K Q 8 >> >> Q 10 8 7 3 10 5 >> A 3 K Q 10 >> Q 8 4 3 A 9 5 2 >> 4 3 J 9 6 5 >> >> A K J 2 >> 9 5 4 >> K J 10 >> 10 7 2 >> >>Bidding >>South West North East >> 1C 1S ....2H all pass >> >>South's 1C "could be short", North hesitated for some >>time before bidding 2H. East claimed that South was >>alerted to 'something' by North's hesitation and passed >>a forcing bid. South claimed he was minimum, and >>hoped West might rebid spades. >>Result 2H +3, for 80% score. Most pairs in 4H down 1, >>but some in NT also failing. >> >>What does North's hesitation suggest (only 4 cards? or >>less than 10 points?} >>If I disallow South's pass, do I have to adjust to 4H -1? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 01:22:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GFMFB17355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:22:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GFM4t17351 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h83.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.83]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GFLqD05610 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:21:53 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <399AB11F.1C54CB72@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:20:01 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen References: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000401c00751$3fe9b480$0f5408c3@dodona> <399A6D7A.6EBD5E43@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman De Wael wrote: > > I have long since favoured that approach. Let the > Regulation makers define a simple boundary, and write the > law as such : > > Systems which break the "Law of 16" are banned. > We consider any opening on a hand that does not suit the > "Law of 16", but is made intentionally as such, to be > systemic and thus banned. > Even such "soft" restriction may be too doubtfull: I am rather old-fashioned player but even vulnarable I would bid 4 Spades with hand QJ1098765432 - x - x - x - with only 14 Rule's points. And who would accuse me? Only TD with any kind of "Rule nn" instrument. Sorry, too simple approach for not so simple game as Bridge is. Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 01:39:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GFdb717370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:39:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ztxmail03.ztx.compaq.com (ztxmail03.ztx.compaq.com [161.114.1.207]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GFdWt17366 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:39:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by ztxmail03.ztx.compaq.com (Postfix, from userid 12345) id 4A4391282; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:39:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from excreo-gh01.reo.dec.com (excreo-gh01.reo.cpqcorp.net [16.41.128.40]) by ztxmail03.ztx.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACAF1879; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:39:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by excreo-gh01.reo.cpqcorp.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:39:28 +0100 Message-ID: <614D0903F0D6D3119D8F00508B5F0FC203964881@excdub-02.ied.cpqcorp.net> From: "Timmermans, Catelijne" To: "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:08:24 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (remember, a non-director talking here :)) Once you open a hand you have opened it and you have to stick with that decision, saying that you were weakish to begin with does not cut it. North hasn't passed yet so theoretically could have loads and loads of points, obviously south has decided because of his hesitation that north doesnt have many points and passes an absolute forcing bid. NO CAN DO! End of story as far as south's pass on 2H is concerned. I do see south's reasoning there, with a big hand north probably would have bid 2s or would have doubled or so his hesitation suggests he is not holding a big hand (tho it still could be up to 12 or so points so even if you take the hesitation into account -yeah you shouldn't but _if_- you still need to bid). As far as where to correct to, that is difficult: it would seem that 2nt is a good bid for South here (I am minimal and have a spadestopper) and now north can pass this or run to 3c which south in good conscience can pass. However, 3h is not a bad bid either and north could be tempted to squeeze out a 4h.... Since most people ended up there it seems reasonable to correct to that score (maybe unless it is a clubnight and you know the pair to be very conservative bidders that don't go to game very easily?) regards, Cat > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Musgrove [mailto:ardelm@ozemail.com.au] > Sent: 16 August 2000 08:19 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? > > > From today's duplicate: > > Nil Vul > Dlr South 6 4 > J 8 7 6 2 > 7 6 > A K Q 8 > > Q 10 8 7 3 10 5 > A 3 K Q 10 > Q 8 4 3 A 9 5 2 > 4 3 J 9 6 5 > > A K J 2 > 9 5 4 > K J 10 > 10 7 2 > > Bidding > South West North East > 1C 1S ....2H all pass > > South's 1C "could be short", North hesitated for some time > before bidding 2H. > East claimed that South was alerted to 'something' by North's > hesitation and > passed a forcing bid. South claimed he was minimum, and > hoped West might > rebid > spades. > Result 2H +3, for 80% score. Most pairs in 4H down 1, but > some in NT also > failing. > > What does North's hesitation suggest (only 4 cards? or less > than 10 points?} > If I disallow South's pass, do I have to adjust to 4H -1? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 03:39:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GHcZ917460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:38:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GHcTt17456 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4sh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.145]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA05682; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001401c007a9$0c5776e0$9113f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Vitold" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:40:17 -0400 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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Vitold even vulnarable I would bid 4 Spades with hand QJ1098765432 - x >- x - x - with only 14 Rule's points. And who would accuse me? Perhaps those who noticed that you have 14 cards :=)) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 05:13:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GJCPI17505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 05:12:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GJCIt17501 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 05:12:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h64.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.64]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GJCDD24976 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:12:13 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <399AE6DE.E7250864@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:09:19 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen References: <001401c007a9$0c5776e0$9113f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Craig Senior wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Vitold > even vulnarable I would bid 4 Spades with hand QJ1098765432 - x > >- x - x - with only 14 Rule's points. And who would accuse me? > > Perhaps those who noticed that you have 14 cards :=)) Thanks, Craig, sir:)) So: QJ109876543 - x - x - x 'll do for vulnerable 4Spades, 14 Rule's points and J1098765432 - x - x - x 'll do for non-vulnerable 4Spades, 12 Rules points. (both - for 500 in case of Double) Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 06:46:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GKkAW17546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:46:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GKk5t17542 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:46:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id QMWJC1QC; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:46:01 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000816171912.007ad100@pop.ozemail.com.au> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:48:46 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From today's duplicate: > >Nil Vul >Dlr South 6 4 > J 8 7 6 2 > 7 6 > A K Q 8 > > Q 10 8 7 3 10 5 > A 3 K Q 10 > Q 8 4 3 A 9 5 2 > 4 3 J 9 6 5 > > A K J 2 > 9 5 4 > K J 10 > 10 7 2 > >Bidding > South West North East > 1C 1S ....2H all pass > >South's 1C "could be short", North hesitated for some time before bidding 2H. >East claimed that South was alerted to 'something' by North's hesitation and >passed a forcing bid. South claimed he was minimum, and hoped West might >rebid >spades. >Result 2H +3, for 80% score. Most pairs in 4H down 1, but some in NT also >failing. > >What does North's hesitation suggest (only 4 cards? or less than 10 points?} >If I disallow South's pass, do I have to adjust to 4H -1? > >Thanks, > >Tony (Sydney) Either 2NT or 3H is a reasonable call with the south hand. South needs to make a call (not pass) unless they are really playing some system that lets N make a nonforcing 2H call. (If so, no alert?) 2NT could lead to N bidding 3C and S bidding 3H which might be passed out, but only without the hesitation. Actual ruling should be 4H down 1. (One of my sometimes partners thinks this 2H bid is nonforcing. I don't know where he gets this idea. He quotes a late 60's version of Goren's Contract Bridge Complete to back up some of his notions.) REH 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 Thu Aug 17 07:00:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GL0DW17563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:00:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GL09t17559 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:00:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from laptop ([203.96.101.73]) by mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000816210731.GUHU889718.mta4-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop> for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:07:31 +1200 Message-ID: <011f01c007c4$7ae53500$666860cb@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200008151452.KAA07275@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:33:48 +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: "Steve Willner" > As you say, it isn't easy! > > But for _regulatory purposes_, is there anything terribly wrong with > defining "hand strength" as high card points plus length of two longest > suits? Then an average hand is "Rule of 18," 10 HCP and 4432 > distribution. > This is not true. For any particular distribution the average number of high card points is 10. The average length of the longest suit is 4.9; the second longest suit 3.7; the third longest suit 2.7; and the shortest suit 1.7 . (according to my calculations) Thus an average hand using this type of rule is rule of 18.6 . The flaw in your description is that 4432 are not average hands (distributionally) but one of the poorer hand types. Unless you think of average in a modal sense. While basing a definition of 'weak' or 'not weak' on hcp is obviously flawed I think that alternative definitions will also prove to be flawed. It may just take a little longer (though not too long I suspect) to come up with the anomolies. In fact all such methods are flawed in that they are only intended as guides to hand evaluation not an absolute. One of the basic skills in playing bridge is judgement in hand evaluation. There are a number of guides as to how to judge hcp; losing tricks; total points - like the rules of 18 etc. There are also modifications to these methods of evaluation. We have all seen players (even our partners) judge to bid on a hand that we would judge to 'weak' for the same bid - or if you are of the aggressive type they don't bid when surely the hand is not that 'weak'. Bridge hands are not a continuum strengthwise so IMO it is flawed to even attempt to draw a line in the sand - 'weak' one side and 'not weak' the other. 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 Aug 17 07:45:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GLj2A17586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:45:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7GLiut17582 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:44:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA19722 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15553 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:44:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008162144.RAA15553@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Wayne Burrows" > The average length of the longest suit is 4.9; the second longest suit 3.7; > the third longest suit 2.7; and the shortest suit 1.7 . Did you take into account dependencies? That is to say, if the longest suit is longer, the second-longest will tend to be shorter. However, I accept your basic point that 4432 is the mode, not the mean. > In fact all such methods are flawed in that they are only intended as guides > to hand evaluation not an absolute. Oh, I agree completely with that. That's why I emphasized _for regulatory purposes_ in my earlier message. Regulators cannot teach the players hand evaluation, but there needs to be a clear definition of what is legal and what isn't. So far, I like Peter Gill's suggestion best: HCP plus cards over four in any suit. This is a terrible method for deciding what to bid, but it seems quite useful for regulatory purposes. An average hand is 11, so a king less is 8, and regulators *may* limit openings at the one level with 8 "PG points" points or less. (This doesn't mean they *must* do so.) This seems to get at what we want: long suits compensate for lack of high cards. For openings at higher levels, different limits might be appropriate. And remember, _natural_ openings at higher levels may not be regulated, and in general, the WBF permits artificial openings. The only issue is which high-level artificial openings count as brown sticker. It does seem to me that a hand with 8 or fewer "PG points," and maybe 9 or even 10, can fairly be considered "weak" for regulatory purposes. By no means does that suggest I wouldn't open them! But fundamentally I agree with Ton. The whole subject deserves careful consideration. While "an average hand" may be OK for the Laws, leaving specific definition to SO's, it is hardly adequate for Conditions of Contest. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 08:22:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7GMMXM17608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:22:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7GMMTt17604 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:22:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia602714 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:21:54 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-155.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.155]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Silly-MailRouter V2.9 17/5710135); 17 Aug 2000 08:21:53 Message-ID: <00f401c00834$a290e3e0$59d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:18:32 +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 Wayne Burrows wrote: >For any particular distribution the average number of >high card points is 10. > >The average length of the longest suit is 4.9; the second >longest suit 3.7; the third longest suit 2.7; and the >shortest suit 1.7 (according to my calculations). If *HCP + Length Points* were used, then an average hand is about 10 + 0.9 = about 11 points (one Length Point for each card greater than four in a suit). So an average hand using *HCP + LP* is 11 points (or Total Points). This could be a useful way to fix the current WBF Systems Policy mess in the short term, until someone can think of a better way. Including Length Points in the definition of an average hand has to be better than using only HCP in the definition. > ............... >In fact all such methods are flawed in that they are only >intended as guides to hand evaluation not an absolute. > .............. >Bridge hands are not a continuum strengthwise so IMO >it is flawed to even attempt to draw a line in the sand - >'weak' one side and 'not weak' the other. OK, so the Length Points idea is only an improvement, from something that's stuffed to something that's not quite as stuffed. Which means that IYO the WBF needs to totally revamp its System Policy. But how? Perhaps all methods of Systems Regulation are flawed and the solution is to find the least flawed option. 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 Aug 17 15:54:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7H5rZs17821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:53:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7H5rSt17814 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:53:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.56] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13PIc7-0000ld-00; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:53:16 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c0080f$79f058a0$385608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "bridge-laws" References: <200008151452.KAA07275@cfa183.harvard.edu> <011f01c007c4$7ae53500$666860cb@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:44:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > Bridge hands are not a continuum strengthwise so IMO it is flawed to even > attempt to draw a line in the sand - 'weak' one side and 'not weak' the > other. > +=+ The statistical arguments are interesting in an academic sense. However, if we were to move to a 'Rule of 16' (or 15, or 17) definition we would not be defining 'weak' and 'not weak', but rather the point in a chosen method of evaluation at which the regulation operates. For Peter Gill: 'corresponds to' = matches to = has the quality defined by the words. ~ 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 Aug 17 15:54:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7H5rWL17820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:53:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7H5rNt17811 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:53:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.56] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13PIc9-0000ld-00; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:53:17 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c0080f$7ac16440$385608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Vitold" , "Bridge Laws" References: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <000401c00751$3fe9b480$0f5408c3@dodona> <399A6D7A.6EBD5E43@village.uunet.be> <399AB11F.1C54CB72@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:47:03 +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: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > Hi all:) > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > I have long since favoured that approach. Let the > > Regulation makers define a simple boundary, and write the > > law as such : > > > > Systems which break the "Law of 16" are banned. > > We consider any opening on a hand that does not suit the > > "Law of 16", but is made intentionally as such, to be > > systemic and thus banned. > > > > Even such "soft" restriction may be too doubtfull: I am rather old-fashioned > player but even vulnarable I would bid 4 Spades with hand QJ1098765432 - x > - x - x - with only 14 Rule's points. And who would accuse me? Only TD with > any kind of "Rule nn" instrument. > Sorry, too simple approach for not so simple game as Bridge is. > Vitold > +=+ Let us not forget that 'Brown Sticker' is a control upon the use of conventions with multiple meanings ~ 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 Aug 17 16:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7H6V9h17853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:31:09 +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 e7H6V2t17849 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:31:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.164] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13PJCb-00015r-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:30:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c00814$be53b960$a45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00f401c00834$a290e3e0$59d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:25:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > OK, so the Length Points idea is only an improvement, > from something that's stuffed to something that's not quite > as stuffed. Which means that IYO the WBF needs to totally > revamp its System Policy. But how? Perhaps all methods > of Systems Regulation are flawed and the solution is to find > the least flawed option. > +=+ This whole discussion is circling around the views of 'x' or 'y' or 'z' as to how hands ought to be segregated above and below the line. For the purposes of regulation it is unimportant that the segregation should fit with the opinions of Grattan or Peter or Wayne or whoever; what matters is that the selected method of segregation should place a boundary between high and low that is unarguably defined, whether this player or that likes what lies above it and below it or not. The difficulty with the current wording is that it is arguably somewhat fuzzy at the edges because it deals only in HCP whereas hand valuation in general does not. ~ 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 Aug 17 17:08:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7H77is17878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:07:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7H77bt17874 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA09032 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:07:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? 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: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Peter Gill wrote: > ----------- > Cultural differences, Alain. In Australia, '+3' means > "making nine tricks", not *making three overtricks*. > > Alain, you do realise that Australia is "on Earth"? :) > > I would adjust to 4H -1, on the grounds that without the > UI (South's hesitation suggesting minimal values IMO), > 2H - 3H - 4H is both likely and at all probable. > I would adjust (even more gently) even if South in a > nice friendly club game was a beginner who had no > idea what was happening. > A question. Is the concept that North's hesitation conveys that he is borderline minimum compatible with it being likely that he will proceed to 4H over a minimum (forced) rebid? It doesn't feel right. 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 Thu Aug 17 17:16:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7H7FLm17895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:15:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (mgw-x1.nokia.com [131.228.20.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7H7FEt17891 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:15:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.108]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (8.10.2/8.10.2/Nokia) with ESMTP id e7H7Eak02865 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:15:04 +0300 (EET DST) Received: by esebh11nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:14:36 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:14:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Vitold [mailto:vitold@elnet.msk.ru] > Sent: 16. August 2000 22:09 > Cc: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen > > > Hi all:) > > Craig Senior wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vitold > > even vulnarable I would bid 4 Spades with hand QJ1098765432 - x > > >- x - x - with only 14 Rule's points. And who would accuse me? > > > > Perhaps those who noticed that you have 14 cards :=)) > > Thanks, Craig, sir:)) > So: QJ109876543 - x - x - x 'll do for vulnerable 4Spades, 14 > Rule's points > and J1098765432 - x - x - x 'll do for non-vulnerable > 4Spades, 12 Rules > points. > (both - for 500 in case of Double) > Vitold I hate that Rule n regulations, too but they only apply to _one-level_ openings and by no means to pre-empts so you'll need to find another example. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 17 19:53:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7H9pd117951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:51:39 +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 [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7H9pXt17947 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-33.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.33]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18851 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:51:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <399A7E1D.804D5CCC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:42:21 +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: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? References: <3.0.6.32.20000816171912.007ad100@pop.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove wrote: > > >From today's duplicate: > > Nil Vul > Dlr South 6 4 > J 8 7 6 2 > 7 6 > A K Q 8 > > Q 10 8 7 3 10 5 > A 3 K Q 10 > Q 8 4 3 A 9 5 2 > 4 3 J 9 6 5 > > A K J 2 > 9 5 4 > K J 10 > 10 7 2 > > Bidding > South West North East > 1C 1S ....2H all pass > > South's 1C "could be short", North hesitated for some time before bidding 2H. > East claimed that South was alerted to 'something' by North's hesitation and > passed a forcing bid. South claimed he was minimum, and hoped West might > rebid > spades. > Result 2H +3, for 80% score. Most pairs in 4H down 1, but some in NT also > failing. > > What does North's hesitation suggest (only 4 cards? or less than 10 points?} > If I disallow South's pass, do I have to adjust to 4H -1? > > Thanks, > > Tony (Sydney) > This really depends on NS-agreements about 2He. If 2He is forcing, then the hesitation shows doubt, so the pass should not be allowed. If 2He is non-forcing, then the hesitation shows plus-values, and the pass becomes the right thing to do under L16 (no extras to go on with). In the first case, yes you should adjust to 4Sp-1, unless you were convinced by NS that EW allowed 11 tricks to make in such a manner that they would also do this against 4Sp, in which case the result should stand at +200. -- 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 Aug 18 05:22:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7HJK8218257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 05:20:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7HJK2t18253 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 05:20:03 +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 RB8P704W; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:19:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:22:44 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In-Reply-To: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> >Peter Gill wrote: >> ----------- >> Cultural differences, Alain. In Australia, '+3' means >> "making nine tricks", not *making three overtricks*. >> >> Alain, you do realise that Australia is "on Earth"? :) >> >> I would adjust to 4H -1, on the grounds that without the >> UI (South's hesitation suggesting minimal values IMO), >> 2H - 3H - 4H is both likely and at all probable. >> I would adjust (even more gently) even if South in a >> nice friendly club game was a beginner who had no >> idea what was happening. >> >A question. Is the concept that North's hesitation conveys that he is >borderline minimum compatible with it being likely that he will >proceed to 4H over a minimum (forced) rebid? >It doesn't feel right. > >Tim West-Meads > Under Law 12C2 the most unfavorable result that was at all propbable for NS was 4H down 1. (Maybe this pair could stop at 3H, but we don't have evidence to support that view. My guess is they would end up in 4H at least 1 time in 10.) We can argue about the most favorable result that was likely for EW. If we think this pair, absent the UI, was really very likely to stop at 3H and very unlikely to go on to 4H, then EW should get 3H making, -140. My understanding of the meaning of "the most favorable result that was likely" is that the most favorable result just has to be somewhat probable, maybe 1 chance in 3 or 1 chance in 4. (Who can judge chances that nicely, anyway?) My guess is that NS had at least a 1 in 4 chance of ending up in 4H, so I say, EW gets the score for 4H down 1. REH 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 Fri Aug 18 15:57:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I5ssc18510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:54:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym (gatekeeper.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.253]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7I5sbt18503 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:54:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1766 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2000 05:54:28 -0000 Received: from petrus2.konvent (HELO eduhi.at) (192.168.1.116) by michael.gym with SMTP; 18 Aug 2000 05:54:28 -0000 Message-ID: <399CCFD4.EC77D45E@eduhi.at> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:55:32 +0200 From: Petrus Schuster OSB X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] full disclosure? References: <003901c00764$5d838bc0$ebe036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill schrieb: > My personal guess at this one is that the question and the answer > were both flawed. Based on the information in Petrus's post, > I would proably adjust the score, although with some concern that > it is very commonplace to answer the question exactly as EW did. > I regard myself as a hardliner on punishing pairs who answer > questions inadequately, and would expect the softer Directors > to go easy on EW because EW's answer was exactly the same > as what I might have said myself ("might" not *would*). As Petrus > pointed out, the timing of the question is a crucial element here. > Quite so. Which leaves us with the crucial question: Is "full information" an objective standard or to be based on the opponents' abilities? It seems right that answer X might be "full information" for an experienced declarer but not for a beginner. But that makes it difficult to provide this information if you do not know your opponents (in this case, guests from Northern Germany). Obviously, "full information" in a litteral sense is impossible; if you play a system published in a 120-page book and have but a year's partnership experience and perfect memory, a full explanation of any call with all positive and negative inferences would take hours. So maybe, "full explanation" should be based on something like a L16-standard? Perhaps, "what 4 in 5 fair-minded peers would provide"? cheers, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 18 16:24:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I6NFo18536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:23:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7I6N6t18532 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:23:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va664685 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:22:38 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-85.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.85]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kickin-MailRouter V2.9 17/6355077); 18 Aug 2000 16:22:38 Message-ID: <01b001c00940$ebfc20a0$27e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 04:14:36 +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 Tony Musgrove wrote: >>>>From today's duplicate ..... Robert Harris wrote; >Under Law 12C2 the most unfavorable result that was >at all probable for NS was 4H down 1. (Maybe this >pair could stop at 3H, but we don't have evidence to >support that view. My guess is they would end up in >4H at least 1 time in 10.) Yes, "we don't have evidence". But Tony Musgrove, as the regular TD at the club, might. He might know for instance that this particular NS pair hardly ever bids games because they're both so conservative. If so, not adjusting the score (because 3H scores the same as 2H) starts to make sense. >We can argue about the most favorable result that was >likely for EW. If we think this pair, absent the UI, was >really very likely to stop at 3H and very unlikely to go >on to 4H, then EW should get 3H making, -140. My >understanding of the meaning of "the most favorable >result that was likely" is that the most favorable result >just has to be somewhat probable, maybe 1 chance >in 3 or 1 chance in 4. (Who can judge chances that nicely, >anyway?) My guess is that NS had at least a 1 in 4 chance >of ending up in 4H, so I say, EW gets the score for 4H down 1. In Australia, awarding split scores is rare. Is it quite a common practice overseas? 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 Fri Aug 18 16:39:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I6cjk18549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:38:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7I6cet18545 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:38:40 +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 QAA09892 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:34:54 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:35:23 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3 (Intl)) with SMTP id 2000081816323813:14701 ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:32:38 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A25693F.00246E38 ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:37:55 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A25693F.00246E1A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:37:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Two way agreements Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 18/08/2000 16:32:38, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 18/08/2000 16:32:39, Serialize complete at 18/08/2000 16:32:39 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a previous thread (whose name I have forgotten) it was revealed that a pair had an implicit agreement that in a particular sequence 4H promised either a singleton heart, or six hearts, and partner had to guess which. [Digression from main theme of this post - is guessing right, assuming no UI exists, equivalent to fielding a psyche?] As I have previously revealed, my regular partner and I play a complex relay system. I have a miniscule error rate applying the system, but pard's errors are frequent in mildly competitive auctions. Due to the nature of relay systems, it is on very rare occasions that I can deduce during the auction that pard has misbid - and even then I have no idea exactly where he has made his mistake. (The only sensible guess I can make where a relay misbid is possible, is to hope that it does not exist.) We therefore have a two way *agreement* that, in competition, pard has either bid according to the system, or has made a misbid of random magnitude. Theoretically, active ethics would require opponents to be notified in advance of pard's vulnerability to competitive bidding. But is this required by Law? Is a *random* tendency to forget partnership agreements also an agreement? Given that I have no idea *which* misbid pard may perpetrate, do opponents have to be pre-alerted under L75A or L75C? Or would a more appropriate Law be L40A? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au *************************** Important Warning! *************************** This electronic communication (including any attached files) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is only intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have permission to read, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or retain any part of this communication or its attachments in any form. If this e-mail was sent to you by mistake, please take the time to notify the sender so that they can identify the problem and avoid any more mistakes in sending e-mail to you. The unauthorised use of information contained in this communication or its attachments may result in legal action against any person who uses 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 Fri Aug 18 17:00:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I6wch18573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:58:38 +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 e7I6wWt18569 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:58:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.59] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Pg6m-00020D-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:58:28 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c008e1$c08cf160$3b5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Web site Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:57:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:36:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.209] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Pgh4-0002Z0-00; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:35:59 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c008e6$fe0032a0$3b5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <4A25693F.00246E1A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:06:09 +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: Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 7:37 AM Subject: [BLML] Two way agreements > > > In a previous thread (whose name I have forgotten) it was revealed that a pair > had an implicit agreement that in a particular sequence 4H promised either a > singleton heart, or six hearts, and partner had to guess which. > > [Digression from main theme of this post - is guessing right, assuming no UI > exists, equivalent to fielding a psyche?] > > As I have previously revealed, my regular partner and I play a complex relay > system. I have a miniscule error rate applying the system, but pard's errors > are frequent in mildly competitive auctions. Due to the nature of relay > systems, it is on very rare occasions that I can deduce during the auction that > pard has misbid - and even then I have no idea exactly where he has made his > mistake. (The only sensible guess I can make where a relay misbid is possible, > is to hope that it does not exist.) > +=+ When a partnership has matured anything said to be of a random nature is rarely quite as random as it is suggested. Partners do get a feel for what goes on, what is likely to be untrustworthy, what a partner's inclinations are. Patterns develop. Inevitably then the partnership has insider knowledge that is advantageous. ~ 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 Aug 18 17:37:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I7aG618598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:36:16 +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 e7I7a8t18591 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.209] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Pgh6-0002Z0-00; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:36:01 +0100 Message-ID: <004e01c008e6$ff5f2660$3b5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01b001c00940$ebfc20a0$27e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:33:13 +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, August 18, 2000 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? > > > In Australia, awarding split scores is rare. Is it quite > a common practice overseas? > > Peter Gill > Australia. > +=+ It would be dangerous to talk of a practice in Europe because we have 40 (?) NBOs and practices, where they can vary, do so widely. The EBL as such is, and in my experience always has been, strongly disinclined to award different scores to the sides at the table; to repeat it ad nauseam this is why the EBL fought for 12C3 when EK was introducing a concept in 12C2 that Europe thought little of. In extremis, of course, there are occasional situations in which scores can only be split. In EBL appeals committees no great emphasis is put, when awarding adjusted scores, on the punishment aspect. It may or may not be evident in the adjustment but it is unlikely that the question will have been raised in the discussion. Restoration of a rough equity is the chief object and often the only one. The mentality is that of the 1975 Code of Laws which clearly set any question of penalizing apart from the adjustment of the score (the aim of which was to restore to the non-offending side what it had lost through the infraction, but - quite expressly - nothing more than this). ~ 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 Aug 18 19:23:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I9Lki18651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:21:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7I9Ldt18647 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:21:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-213.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.213]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27515 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <399BBCA1.73AC66C@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:21:21 +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: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" References: <004b01c007ea$7b6a9c60$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill touches on a good point, but I don't understand his conclusions. The word "weak" enters the systems policies in two different points : 1) weak openings at the one level (even natural ones) 2) weak openings at the two level, and some overcalls, without known suits. In both cases however, the "weak" things are banned (or restricted). So we are always looking at a minimum, below which one cannot descend. In Belgium, we have decided that weak is everything less than 12HCP. In Belgium, the "brown sticker" definitions do not distinguish between overcalls over 1-in-a-suit and over 1NT, so in Belgium, "crash" is banned (at the lower divisions - not at the top) unless always performed on a hand that also holds 12 HCP. I realize this definition is somewhat high - and probably flawed, but at least it is simple. -- 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 Aug 18 19:36:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7I9a7418665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:36:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7I9a0t18661 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:36:01 +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 LAA11575; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:36:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA18782; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:35:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000818114503.008c94f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:45:03 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements In-Reply-To: <4A25693F.00246E1A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:37 18/08/00 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > >In a previous thread (whose name I have forgotten) it was revealed that a pair >had an implicit agreement that in a particular sequence 4H promised either a >singleton heart, or six hearts, and partner had to guess which. > >[Digression from main theme of this post - is guessing right, assuming no UI >exists, equivalent to fielding a psyche?] AG : certainly not ! Using CRaSh, patner overcalls 1S (majors or minors) over their strong club. You have 55 majors. You pass before it's too late because you beleive him to have minors. Or you have 3064 pattern. And you pass because it is as good a spot as any facing partner's expected major two-suiter. You are guessing his hand, risking to be badly wrong. Nothig suggests "fielding", only bridge logic, which one is, I hope, allowed to use. >As I have previously revealed, my regular partner and I play a complex relay >system. I have a miniscule error rate applying the system, but pard's errors >are frequent in mildly competitive auctions. Due to the nature of relay >systems, it is on very rare occasions that I can deduce during the auction that >pard has misbid - and even then I have no idea exactly where he has made his >mistake. (The only sensible guess I can make where a relay misbid is possible, >is to hope that it does not exist.) > >We therefore have a two way *agreement* that, in competition, pard has either >bid according to the system, or has made a misbid of random magnitude. AG : I don't like this at all. If your parner is prone to forget his complex system in not-so-unlikely auctions, he should play something simpler. I don't object to complex relay bidding (I use a lot myself, having played a long time with a great theorist), but it places the onus of knowledge much more severely on the pair. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 18 22:48:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ICjXe18803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gw-nl4.philips.com (gw-nl4.philips.com [192.68.44.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7ICjQt18799 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:45:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl4.philips.com with ESMTP id OAA14213 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:45:20 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from con.holzscherer@philips.com) From: con.holzscherer@philips.com Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl4.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma014211; Fri, 18 Aug 00 14:45:20 +0200 Received: from notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (notessmtp-nl1.philips.com [130.139.36.10]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id OAA13078 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:45:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from EHLMS01.DIAMOND.PHILIPS.COM (ehlms01sv1.diamond.philips.com [130.139.54.212]) by notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id OAA09686 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:45:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EHLMS01.DIAMOND.PHILIPS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 4.0) with snapi via EMEA3 id 0056890013414274; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:46:25 +0200 To: Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Message-ID: <0056890013414274000002L942*@MHS> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:46:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="MEMO 08/18/00 14:41:10" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e7ICjTt18800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk HarrisR wrote: > Under Law 12C2 the most unfavorable result that was at all > propbable for NS was 4H down 1. I don't think so. If I remember the hands correctly NS can not make more then 8 tricks (2S,2H.1D,3C) unless EW are very friendly. So I think 4H down 1 is by no means the m.u.r.t.w.a.a.p. Con -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 18 23:17:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IDFaX18827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:15:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.isi.com (hermes.isi.com [192.73.222.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7IDFUt18823 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:15:31 +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 GAA10582 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 06:16:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:17:17 -0400 Message-ID: <000a01c00916$a1c44960$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 In-Reply-To: <399BBCA1.73AC66C@village.uunet.be> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The word "weak" enters the systems policies in two different > points : > > 1) weak openings at the one level (even natural ones) > 2) weak openings at the two level, and some overcalls, > without known suits. > > In both cases however, the "weak" things are banned (or > restricted). > > So we are always looking at a minimum, below which one > cannot descend. > > In Belgium, we have decided that weak is everything less > than 12HCP. Herman I MUST be misunderstanding something. It sounds like you are saying that the system regulations used in Belgium ban systems that open hands containing less than 12 HCP at the one level. As a specific example, can I play a system where the following hands are considered systematic 1S openings? AKxxx JT9xx xxx xxxx Axxx Kx x AK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOZ03WSGkJ7YU62vZEQJi/gCgh+QO921zC4PkknI0WjO3QYHssDQAn3Li ok88FuXKaWfizIWQkTmnLhJq =z84+ -----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 Aug 19 00:21:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IEKMA18856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:20:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7IEKDt18852 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:20:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5246 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2000 14:17:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO inter.net.il) (213.8.7.69) by square.inter.net.il with SMTP; 18 Aug 2000 14:17:58 -0000 Message-ID: <399D4684.AFF23F49@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:21:56 +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 Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" References: <004b01c007ea$7b6a9c60$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Peter I read the following .... Peter Gill wrote: > r the submission of CCs. IMO the BLML being about > 250 of the finest brains in the bridge world (?) is a good > place to try to find an intelligent way to define "Weak". > I understand you spoke about the C-BLML (cats blml) and D-BLML (dogs blml). I am happy you believe that us - the cats and dogs of the H-BLML (human blml) members - are the most clever in this tough world. We'll do the best in order to confirm your opinion . Shobo & Kushi -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 19 01:06:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IF5FR18884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:05:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com [139.134.5.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7IF5Bt18880 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:05:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa635377 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:03:22 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-38.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.38]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Spontaneous-MailRouter V2.9 5/3507989); 19 Aug 2000 01:03:21 Message-ID: <004a01c00989$a2024080$26df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 12:59:45 +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 Con Holzscherer wrote: >...... If I remember the hands correctly NS can not make >more then 8 tricks (2S,2H.1D,3C) unless EW are very friendly. > >So I think 4H down 1 is by no means the m.u.r.t.w.a.a.p. Surely we should take into account that NS played 2H and made 9 tricks, so if we adjust the score to 4H then NS should still make 9 tricks. Peter Gill -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 19 01:43:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IFfGr18909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:41:16 +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 e7IFf8t18905 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:41:09 +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 LAA09436 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:41:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008181541.LAA29788@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > In a previous thread (whose name I have forgotten) it was revealed that a pair > had an implicit agreement that in a particular sequence 4H promised either a > singleton heart, or six hearts, and partner had to guess which. > > [Digression from main theme of this post - is guessing right, assuming no UI > exists, equivalent to fielding a psyche?] I agree with Alain's answer but not his reason. There is no fielded psych here because there is no psych. Either the meaning of 4H is properly disclosed, and there's no problem, or it isn't, and we have ordinary MI. Either way, 4H was intended to describe the hand and isn't psychic at all. However... if partner holds a doubleton heart and correctly "guesses" that 4H was on a singleton, I would be a bit suspicious of the "no UI" assumption. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 19 01:56:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IFtVg18925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:55:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gw-nl4.philips.com (gw-nl4.philips.com [192.68.44.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7IFtOt18921 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:55:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl4.philips.com with ESMTP id RAA21288 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:55:20 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from con.holzscherer@philips.com) From: con.holzscherer@philips.com Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl4.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma021286; Fri, 18 Aug 00 17:55:20 +0200 Received: from notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (notessmtp-nl1.philips.com [130.139.36.10]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id RAA03209 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:55:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from EHLMS01.DIAMOND.PHILIPS.COM (ehlms01sv1.diamond.philips.com [130.139.54.212]) by notessmtp-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id RAA07231 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:55:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by EHLMS01.DIAMOND.PHILIPS.COM (Soft-Switch LMS 4.0) with snapi via EMEA3 id 0056890013421103; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:56:24 +0200 To: Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Message-ID: <0056890013421103000002L932*@MHS> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:56:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="MEMO 08/18/00 17:54:25" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e7IFtRt18922 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > Surely we should take into account that NS played 2H and > made 9 tricks, so if we adjust the score to 4H then NS > should still make 9 tricks. I do not agree. Defending a seemingly normal game contract, EW might easily defend differently from defending a 'supposedly ridiculous' contract. If every other NS is in game, it is not really important whether you let your opponents make 8, 9 or even 10 tricks in 2 hearts. Con Holzscherer -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 19 02:23:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IGMi718947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:22:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7IGMbt18943 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:22:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.85]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17187 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <399D0B2C.7590602E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:08:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] full disclosure? References: <003901c00764$5d838bc0$ebe036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <399CCFD4.EC77D45E@eduhi.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > > Obviously, "full information" in a litteral sense is impossible; if you > play a system published in a 120-page book and have but a year's > partnership experience and perfect memory, a full explanation of any > call with all positive and negative inferences would take hours. > So maybe, "full explanation" should be based on something like a > L16-standard? Perhaps, "what 4 in 5 fair-minded peers would provide"? > I don't think so. I think the theoretical "full disclosure" should be the standard. However, I also believe that if the real disclosure comse close enough to the full disclosure, the opponents would no longer have a case. Consider this : "2He is a six card suit" fuller "2He is also done on a seven card suit" fuller "he has once opened 2Sp on a 5 card suit" even fuller "when he did that, he held 5332 with all the points in the other major" While all this needs to be told, in theory, in practice it will not matter when some of it is omitted. When considering whether or not to overcall, it is not important whether or not there can be 7 or 5. When considering the play at first, it is not important to consider the minor possibilities. But when partner turns up with the extra trump, the fourth piece of information suddenly becomes vital. So you see, it is all a matter of circumstances. And it would not be good to tamper with the ideal of "full disclosure". -- 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 Aug 19 02:50:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IGmES18965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:48:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.10.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7IGm8t18961 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh12nok.ntc.nokia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:48:05 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] How many tricks does the revoke cost? Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:48:01 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi folks, A short break to give a moment of relief to the "250 finest brains in the world". The French contributors to this list already know the story but I just couldn't resist. Moving (temporarily) temporarily to Finland was all I had to do to see the most expensive revoke I have ever seen. Declarer opened 1NT (strong) and played there having no entry do dummy. The clubs were 8xxx Qx AJ109 Kxx West played the Q which held, of course. Then he played a club to the 9 which held, "of course". Why? Well, my partner didn't mind playing the hand with just 12 cards. The card he left in the board was the 8C so he signaled the possession of just 3 cards in the suit. At trick 12 he won his DK, saw that everyone else still had a card left, then produced the missing 8C that took the trick instead of my diamond ace. Everyone on BLML knows of course what the ruling should be: a two-trick revoke. Add these two tricks to the 3 extra club tricks to which declarer was not entitled and you'll get the total of five! A second splendid result added to my collection of very hard to beat records (the other is letting through a slam off _three_ aces while none of the opponents had a void! - I made the "key play"). Anyone wanting to start a lighthearted thread on costly revokes? Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 19 08:35:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7IMWAN19120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:32:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.39.156]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7IMW3t19116 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from bellatlantic.net (adsl-151-202-101-13.bellatlantic.net [151.202.101.13]) by smtp-out1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA21866 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:31:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <399DB956.D2E42B8C@bellatlantic.net> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:31:50 -0400 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-WorldNet (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have, with some editing (removal of names and hands), reproduced Appeals Case 2 from the Summer Nationals in Anaheim. The part of the committee decision that strikes me is "At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the table and had South explain the intent of the double." Doesn't this depend on whether NS actually had an agreement? Practically speaking, how would this be determined? Wouldn't it require S to strongly correct N's uncertainty as to the meaning with statement to the effect that NS indeed had an agreement? Appeals Case 2 Subject: Misinformation Event: Life Master Pairs, 12 August, second semifinal session Bd: 3 1D-P-1S-1N Dbl-P-2H-AP (1) [The double] Intended as a support double, not Alerted The Facts: 2H made two, plus 110 for N/S. The Director was called after dummy was displayed. South believed she had made a support double. North did not believe that anyone played support doubles after 1NT overcalls. North was unsure as to the meaning of the double. The Director allowed the table result to stand since neither East nor West had any clear action. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. North and West were the only players to attend the hearing. West believed that had he known South was making a support double, he might have bid 2NT. He believed that North should not have removed the double. North said that South was a relatively inexperienced player (a student of his, though a Life Master). He had explained at the table that his partner might have meant the double as Support, though he wasn’t sure. He believed that removing the double was the right action with his hand. The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that North went out of his way to explain the possibilities for his partner’s double, that it was possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she was relatively inexperienced. At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the table and had South explain the intent of the double. The Committee believed that the decision North had made to bid 2H could just as well have worked out badly for his side. The result was “rub of the green” for E/W. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and believed the appeal just barely met the standard of having merit because N/S were not totally clear on their agreement. -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 19 13:18:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7J3Ft719220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:15:55 +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 e7J3Fmt19216 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:15:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.196] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Pz6k-0000d3-00; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 04:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c0098b$cd8c4500$c45608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael Kopera" , "Bridge Laws" References: <399DB956.D2E42B8C@bellatlantic.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:59:07 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 11:31 PM Subject: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 I have, with some editing (removal of names and hands), reproduced Appeals Case 2 from the Summer Nationals in Anaheim. ----------------- \x/ ---------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that North went out of his way to explain the possibilities for his partner's double, that it was possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she was relatively inexperienced. At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the table and had South explain the intent of the double. +=+ ? +=+ ------------------------ \x/ ------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 19 14:13:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7J4CKJ19250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:12:20 +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 (f108.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7J4CFt19246 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:12:07 -0700 Received: from 172.155.108.86 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.108.86] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] full disclosure? Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:12:07 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2000 04:12:07.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3899840:01C00993] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >I think the theoretical "full disclosure" should be the >standard. > >However, I also believe that if the real disclosure comse >close enough to the full disclosure, the opponents would no >longer have a case. > >Consider this : > >"2He is a six card suit" >fuller >"2He is also done on a seven card suit" Then the first statement is incorrect. "2He is usually a six-card suit," or maybe even "2He is often a six-card suit," but it shouldn't go unqualified. >fuller >"he has once opened 2Sp on a 5 card suit" >even fuller >"when he did that, he held 5332 with all the points in the >other major" > >While all this needs to be told, in theory, in practice it >will not matter when some of it is omitted. > >When considering whether or not to overcall, it is not >important whether or not there can be 7 or 5. >When considering the play at first, it is not important to >consider the minor possibilities. >But when partner turns up with the extra trump, the fourth >piece of information suddenly becomes vital. > >So you see, it is all a matter of circumstances. > >And it would not be good to tamper with the ideal of "full >disclosure". You are also not going to overcome the problem that people tend to speak imprecisely and in colloquial language. And this is just my opinion, stated again, but I think that some of the burden should start shifting to the opponents to ask the relevant question(s) as full disclosure in the theoretical sense has become an unfair burden upon the person asked the question. The asker has a much better sense of what information is actually relevant than the answerer, who shouldn't be forced to read minds or walk on eggshells when delivering an answer. I'd prefer to think of full disclosure as the idea that your opponents are entitled to as much information about your system as they think they need and not that you are required to divulge all possibly relevant information when asked. This should be tempered with a mindset that just as your answers may not always be the model of precision, the question as posed may suffer the same failings and your answer should be, at the very least, generous. -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 Aug 19 14:32:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7J4UQM19263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:30:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7J4UKt19259 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:30:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:30:12 -0700 Received: from 172.155.108.86 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.155.108.86] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:30:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2000 04:30:12.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A76FF80:01C00996] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >In-Reply-To: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> > >A question. Is the concept that North's hesitation conveys that he is > >borderline minimum compatible with it being likely that he will > >proceed to 4H over a minimum (forced) rebid? > >It doesn't feel right. > > > >Tim West-Meads Something is still a bit fuzzy to me. If the hesitation carried no information per se, but the hesitation suggests some action over passing, is UI still deemed to be transmitted and does L16 still apply? Do we have to assign a meaning to the hesitation before ruling that the hesitation demonstrably suggested passing a forcing bid? -Todd ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 19 17:27:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7J7OKt19330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 17:24:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7J7OEt19326 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 17:24:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-252.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.252]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20024 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:24:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <399D6478.94A97701@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:29:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Definition of "Weak" References: <000a01c00916$a1c44960$23c3e080@isi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > The word "weak" enters the systems policies in two different > > points : > > > > 1) weak openings at the one level (even natural ones) > > 2) weak openings at the two level, and some overcalls, > > without known suits. > > > > In both cases however, the "weak" things are banned (or > > restricted). > > > > So we are always looking at a minimum, below which one > > cannot descend. > > > > In Belgium, we have decided that weak is everything less > > than 12HCP. > > Herman > > I MUST be misunderstanding something. > It sounds like you are saying that the system regulations used in > Belgium ban > systems that open hands containing less than 12 HCP at the one level. > > As a specific example, can I play a system where the following hands > are considered systematic 1S openings? > > AKxxx JT9xx > xxx xxxx > Axxx Kx > x AK > Yes Richard, you have misunderstood, or more precisely, I have misexplained. The 12HCP range is only for the use of "weak" in the second case (brown stickers). For openings at the one level we use the rule of 18, except in third position or higher divisions. -- 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 Aug 19 19:50:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7J9mUv19390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:48:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7J9mPt19386 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:48:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa654001 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:48:20 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-191.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.191]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Tiny-MailRouter V2.9 5/3744622); 19 Aug 2000 19:48:19 Message-ID: <003c01c00a26$c9ca7ea0$61d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:43:53 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >Michael Kopera wrote: >>I have, with some editing (removal of names and hands), >>reproduced Appeals Case 2 from the Summer Nationals >>in Anaheim. >>----------------- \x/ ---------------- >>The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that North >>went out of his way to explain the possibilities for his partner's >>double, that it was possibly meant as a Support Double, and >>that she was relatively inexperienced. At this point E/W could >>have asked North to leave the table and had South explain >>the intent of the double. >+=+ ? +=+ Michael's words are exactly what it says at http://www.acbl.org/nabc/anaheim/DailyBull06.htm where the Appeal is recorded online. Law 20F1 says that "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C)." The ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions* booklet omits the word "normally" when it deals with Law 20. So the AC decision seems to conform with the wording of the Laws of Bridge but not with the interpretation of the Laws by the ACBL in their guiding booklet, assuming that *Duplicate Decisions* is the guide for Law interpretation in North America. In Law 20F1, the word "normally" implies that there are situations where the caller may be questioned, presumably after his partner has left the table. It would be most interesting to hear from someone who knows what situations the word "normally" in Law 20F1 is meant to cater for. 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 Sat Aug 19 20:51:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7JAn4819442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:49:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f16.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7JAmwt19438 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:48:50 -0700 Received: from 172.154.59.66 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.154.59.66] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:48:50 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Aug 2000 10:48:50.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F817F90:01C009CB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Peter Gill" >In Law 20F1, the word "normally" implies that there are >situations where the caller may be questioned, presumably >after his partner has left the table. It would be most interesting >to hear from someone who knows what situations the word >"normally" in Law 20F1 is meant to cater for. Screens, possibly. It also makes some sense to include the word normally so that describing your own call is not an infraction of the rules. The reason that your partner usually gives the answer is because there's less UI given that way than had you answered. That problem disappears when your partner isn't at the table or screens are in place and possibly some other times. -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 Sun Aug 20 23:52:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7KDn7G20029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:49:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7KDn2t20025 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:49:02 +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 e7KDn1K10975 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:49:01 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:49:00 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 In-Reply-To: <399DB956.D2E42B8C@bellatlantic.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e7KDn3t20026 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Michael Kopera wrote: > The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that North went out of > his way to explain the possibilities for his partner’s double, that it > was possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she was relatively > inexperienced. At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the > table and had South explain the intent of the double. Was this a bridge Appeals Committee? Where in the Laws does it say that a contestant's **intent** in a call or play is subject to disclosure? E/W are entitled to an explanation of the agreements, experience and understandings, not an accurate description of the South hand. It might seem reasonable, but it ain't bridge. Mark -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 21 11:07:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7L16ct20349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:06:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7L16Vt20345 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13Qg2k-000Gz9-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 02:06:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 02:00:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.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 <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 8/16/00 5:18:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ltrent@home.com >writes: > >> ..........always work toward raising the >> integrity of the lower games to the top.... >> >> Linda >> > >Hear, hear......! Kojak Apart from the smooth running of the competition, education is one of the primary jobs of a TD. Even Kojak does this :)) 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 Aug 21 14:54:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7L4qkS20478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:52:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7L4qft20474 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:52:41 +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 OAA17093 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:48:52 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:49:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:51:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 21/08/2000 14:46:35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My partner and I also have a two way agreement when opening or overcalling a three level preempt. My preempts are stodgily old-fashioned, almost always made with a seven card suit (could be a six card suit with 100 honours). Pard, on the other hand, has no hesitation in preempting with grotty six card suits. Should the opponents be pre-alerted to our differing preemptive styles? It is possible that they may want to play takeout doubles versus my preempts, and penalty doubles versus my partner's. Of course, if the opponents were pre-alerted to every idiosyncrasy of ourselves and our system, we would not get to play a board before the round was called. 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 Mon Aug 21 18:49:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7L8l2520598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:47:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7L8ktt20594 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:46:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis54.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.54]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0FZM002O7WE0V3@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:46:50 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:46:48 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: [BLML] Outstanding Trump In-reply-to: X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000821104408.00a9fef0@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 References: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Short question: Are there any other guidelines for gthe outstanding trump after a contested claim? Example: xxxx - - - - not important x xxx - - AKQ - A S claims for the rest of the trick (S on lead). How many tricks would you give a) an expert b) a rookie ? 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 Mon Aug 21 19:28:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7L9QYs20624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 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 e7L9QRt20620 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:26:28 +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 LAA29356; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:27:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA08138; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:26:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000821113534.008cc100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:35:34 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements 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 14:51 21/08/00 +1000, you wrote: > >My partner and I also have a two way agreement when opening or overcalling >a three level preempt. My preempts are stodgily old-fashioned, almost >always made with a seven card suit (could be a six card suit with 100 >honours). Pard, on the other hand, has no hesitation in preempting with >grotty six card suits. > >Should the opponents be pre-alerted to our differing preemptive styles? It >is possible that they may want to play takeout doubles versus my preempts, >and penalty doubles versus my partner's. AG : pre-alerting would be difficult indeed. But if my partner is accustomed to unsound preempts, I would alert when he does one. And they could still play "Fishbein vs unsound" if they want to (I've had this agreement before). Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 21 19:37:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7L9aQ620637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:36:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7L9aJt20633 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:36:20 +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 LAA02304; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:36:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA14006; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:35:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000821114527.00868530@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:45:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] double ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello to all bridge-cat-dog-nature-... lovers, I would like to ask about a case that happened very recently. N E S W p 1C 1S p 1NT p 2NT 3D ...p p X East's pass was acknowledged as very slow (40 secs ?) West's hand is : AK9x / Jxx / Kxx / Q10x I called the director, explaining that I found the double to be reasonable, but perhaps not so after the tempo. After much consideration, the director - a well-known man in this office - disallowed the double. Although 3D was only 1 down, and thus the difference was only between -50 and -100, it was decisive in determining the end result of the Swiss event. Was he right ? Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 21 20:07:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LA6fA20666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:06:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LA6Yt20662 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:06:35 +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 MAA10764; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:07:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA01447; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:06:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000821121543.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:15:43 +0200 To: Richard Bley , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000821104408.00a9fef0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf. de> References: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:46 21/08/00 +0200, Richard Bley wrote: >Short question: > >Are there any other guidelines for gthe outstanding trump after a contested >claim? > >Example: > xxxx > - > - > - >- not important >x >xxx >- > - > AKQ > - > A > >S claims for the rest of the trick (S on lead). >How many tricks would you give >a) an expert >b) a rookie AG : once and for all, I decided, in complete accordance with the laws, that if a declarer doesn't say s/he plays trmps, then s/he doesn't. The reason behind this being that s/he should state his line of play if s/he feels it could have any importance. Which means s/he is deemed not to know there is an outlurker. One exception : declarer has AKQxx facing xxx, plays AK of trumps, sees they are split, and tables at this very moment. The assumption here should be, IMVHO, that his/her plan is tu pull a third round. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 21 23:11:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LD9xg20825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:09:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LD9qt20821 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:09:53 +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 e7LD9md49525 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:09:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000821090237.00b5b650@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:09:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20000821104408.00a9fef0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf. de> References: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:46 AM 8/21/00, Richard wrote: >Are there any other guidelines for gthe outstanding trump after a >contested claim? > >Example: > xxxx > - > - > - >- not important >x >xxx >- > - > AKQ > - > A > >S claims for the rest of the trick (S on lead). >How many tricks would you give >a) an expert >b) a rookie >? I assume hearts are trump. Three. I wasn't there, but this sounds to me like exactly the situation in which L70C specifically requires that the opponents get their trump. To get all four tricks, S would have to convince me that it was not "at all likely that [he] was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand", and there's nothing in Richard's post to suggest that this would be successful. My ruling would not be affected (directly; I don't deny that an expert might make a better L70C2 argument) by my perception of declarer's ability. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 21 23:11:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LDAsD20831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:10:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com ([207.227.70.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LDAmt20827 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: by MIDNTPROD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:14:53 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF09B7@MIDNTPROD03> From: John Nichols To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] double ruling Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:14:49 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The question is not "was the double reasonable?" but rather 1) Was there a hesitation? Yes. 2) Did the hesitation "demonstrably" suggest the action taken? Yes - It suggests taking some action other than passing. 3) Was passing a logical alternative? I would think so. West has certainly already bid his hand. With "Yes" answers to the three questions the double is not allowed. > -----Original Message----- > From: alain gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 4:45 AM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] double ruling > > > Hello to all bridge-cat-dog-nature-... lovers, > > I would like to ask about a case that happened very recently. > > N E S W > > p 1C 1S > p 1NT p 2NT > 3D ...p p X > > East's pass was acknowledged as very slow (40 secs ?) > > West's hand is : AK9x / Jxx / Kxx / Q10x > > I called the director, explaining that I found the double to > be reasonable, > but perhaps not so after the tempo. > > After much consideration, the director - a well-known man in > this office - > disallowed the double. > > Although 3D was only 1 down, and thus the difference was only > between -50 > and -100, it was decisive in determining the end result of > the Swiss event. > > Was he right ? > > Regards, > > A. > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 21 23:22:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LDLtl20853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:21:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LDLnt20849 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:21:49 +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 e7LDLj727897 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:21:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000821091008.00aaf740@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:21:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] double ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000821114527.00868530@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:45 AM 8/21/00, alain wrote: >I would like to ask about a case that happened very recently. > > N E S W > > p 1C 1S > p 1NT p 2NT > 3D ...p p X > >East's pass was acknowledged as very slow (40 secs ?) > >West's hand is : AK9x / Jxx / Kxx / Q10x > >I called the director, explaining that I found the double to be reasonable, >but perhaps not so after the tempo. > >After much consideration, the director - a well-known man in this office - >disallowed the double. > >Although 3D was only 1 down, and thus the difference was only between -50 >and -100, it was decisive in determining the end result of the Swiss event. > >Was he right ? I would have doubled in W's position, huddle notwithstanding. Simple bridge logic suggests that a hand that was willing to invite 3NT freely cannot be prepared to defend an undoubled contract at the 3-level, so I would take E's pass as forcing, and I therefore see no LA to doubling. I would not, however, rule this way prima facie. I would talk to E-W, ask them what they were thinking about, find out if they had any agreement or had had any discussion about such positions, etc. In other words, I would not impose my own (perhaps idiosyncratic) thinking on W. But if he defended his double along the lines I've suggested, I would be sympathetic, and would allow the double to stand. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 00:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LEbJw21026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:37:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LEb8t21019 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:37:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.37]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15859 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:37:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A133A1.F4E7E4C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:50:25 +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: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Over the weekend, an annual charity tournament that attracts Belgium's finest. Strangely, it also featured 3 appeals. The first one involved L12C3 : bd2 Q104 E/NS 10963 105 K962 AK976 532 AJ KQ84 K932 AJ 73 AQJ4 J8 752 Q8764 1085 W N E S - 1cl - 2cl - 2NT - 3cl - 4NT - 5he - 6cl - 6NT - - - 1 club was strong, and 2 clubs a strong relay. 2NT denied 5 of a major and 3 clubs was intended as another relay, but not interpreted that way. I saw no need to rule UI about the conversion to 6NT, but I did have ears for Souths argumentation about his club lead. South said he had led clubs because they seemed safe to him, since they had been bid on both sides. Of course this handed the contract. With another lead (except diamonds) declarer has to guess the line and could finesse in diamonds in stead of clubs. Especially since West had forgotten to say anything before the lead, I accepted that another lead would have been made. However, I found it less likely that this particular declarer (not one of Belgium's finest) would choose a more exotic line than the club finesse. So I allowed the result to stand. The AC did what I thought it would. They followed my interpretation up to the point of the choice of line. They argued that this declarer might sometimes follow the diamond line and awarded the slam made at 75% and one down at 25%. I believe the AC got this one quite correct. -- 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 Aug 22 00:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LEbdK21034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:37:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LEbGt21024 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:37:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.37]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15920 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:37:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A137EB.3086238@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:08:43 +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: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Same tournament, third appeal bd20 97 W/all AJ62 84 J10642 1054 AJ6 10753 KQ98 AKQ93 J762 8 A5 KQ832 4 105 KQ973 W N E S - - 1NT 2he 3NT - - - West asked about the meaning of 2 hearts, and got the reply "hearts and a minor". South later explained to me that when he heard this replay, he looked down before him and noticed that the wrong bid was there. he had of course intended to bid 2 spades. (spades and a minor) He had said nothing, believing he could not change his bid. Although no CC was at hand, I chose to believe (from experience with the pair, knowledge of the common systems in their surroundings, and the hand) that the explanation had been correct. In fact the opponents agreed with this. So there was no MI, and no ruling. East-West were outraged, not believing that their bad score could stay after such an obvious mistake. I urged them not to appeal, but they did so anyway. The AC took a very long time in arriving at a decision. They heard everyone, and me, and concluded that I had been right in my ruling. And then they did something strange. They had asked me if the player could have changed his bid, after he had noticed that it was the right one. I told them he could have. Even when it was in fact partner's answer that told him to look once again at the bidding card in front of him. They asked me if he was wrong in NOT changing his unintentional call. I told them the law says he COULD change it, not that he should. And yet they found that he was in some way responsible. Of course he might have known the laws better, at which time this would not have happened. So they decided to give him a symbolic penalty of 1 IMP. I don't argue with that, but I do argue with what they did next : they gave the money back. I feel that even if they discuss this for half an hour, and award a penalty to the opponent, that there was no merit in the appeal and the money ought not have been refunded. And this was the same AC that kept the money in appeal 2 earlier in the day. Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not write that up. If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to provide him with the full hands. -- 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 Aug 22 00:39:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LEbeF21035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:37:40 +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 (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LEbJt21027 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:37:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.37]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15955 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:37:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:14:08 +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: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The bidding : - 2di 2cl 2di 3cl - - ?? The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. The one that bid them first of course. But where does it say that in the Laws ? I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for 2005. -- 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 Aug 22 01:24:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LFNSH21077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LFNMt21073 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:23:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13QtPy-0001n8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:23:18 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000821172436.00f790d0@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:24:36 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk first occurrence is in the definition of declarer(chapter 1) regards, anton (didnt take that long to find out) At 04:14 PM 8/21/2000 +0200, you wrote: >The bidding : > >- 2di 2cl 2di >3cl - - ?? > >The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now >wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > >The one that bid them first of course. > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? > >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > >After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for >2005. > >-- >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/ > 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 Tue Aug 22 01:30:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LFScB21153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:28:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LFSXt21149 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:28:34 +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 e7LFSWK10290 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:28:32 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:28:30 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Where does one define declarer? In the definitions! On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > The bidding : > > - 2di 2cl 2di > 3cl - - ?? > > The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now > wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > > The one that bid them first of course. > > But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for > 2005. > > -- > 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 Tue Aug 22 01:52:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LFpdC21171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:51:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from [208.1.218.2] ([208.1.218.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7LFpYt21167 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:51:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from no.name.available by [208.1.218.2] via smtpd (for rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) with SMTP; 21 Aug 2000 15:56:55 UT Received: from ehc.edu (JKUCHEN [172.16.227.223]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id QWSQMN91; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:49:53 -0400 Message-ID: <39A152A3.C2B8023A@ehc.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:02:43 -0400 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This message contains spoiler, so if you haven't done Herman's exercise yet and desire to do so, please stop reading. Herman De Wael wrote: > > The bidding : > > - 2di 2cl 2di > 3cl - - ?? > > The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now > wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > > The one that bid them first of course. > > But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for > 2005. What's wrong with the current placement in the Definitions? As Chapter I, are the Definitions not part of the Laws? I'm sorry if this has been treated before; if it has, I don't recall the solution. John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu | lazarus.ehc.edu/~jkuchen | | fight hunger--visit http://www.thehungersite.com daily | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 02:14:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LGCui21194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LGCot21190 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:12:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17399 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:11:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael wrote: >The bidding : > >- 2di 2cl 2di >3cl - - ?? > >The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now >wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > >The one that bid them first of course. > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? In the definitions, Chapter 1. >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. Four minutes. How'd I do? :-) 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/AwUBOaFU/b2UW3au93vOEQIkyACfcgqe77JPMi/dESg9HYYpU0haJPIAn1uI W9F9vFA78dB/dinPAgW28hP5 =Cln4 -----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 Aug 22 03:04:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LH29r21264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:02:09 +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 e7LH1pt21260 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:01:52 +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 NAA17036 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA02867 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:01:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008211701.NAA02867@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Penalty card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here's an article from RGB. The more I think about my answer, the less I like it. Perhaps BLML readers will have some thoughts. -----Begin included article----- "Andy Bowles" writes: > South is declarer. > > During the play, South leads a spade, West plays a club, and, before the > revoke is established, replaces it with a spade, leaving the club face up on > the table. Everyone at the table believes that the club is a major penalty > card, and no one suggests that the director should be called. > > Later, East becomes on lead, whilst West's club is still face up. Before > South has a chance to say anything, East, who believes that he understands > this area of the Laws but does not, leads a diamond. > > South calls the director and explains that he wishes to exercise his right > to require a club lead. East has a club. First read out Law 9B1a: "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." PP's all around for the violation, probably warnings unless this is a repeat offense for one or both sides. Then read out L11A about forfeiture of the right to penalize. I can see two possible rulings: A. If East's _prior_ play has been affected by not knowing about the lead penalty -- could he profitably have refused the trick, for example? -- the diamond lead stands. The penalty card remains, and there _may_ be future lead penalties, but only if East's prior play no longer matters. B. If East's prior play was unaffected, then he picks up the diamond and leads a club as required. Contrary to what some other posters have written, the diamond does not become a penalty card. (L11A: if East had known about the lead penalties, he would never have led a diamond.) West picks up his club and can follow suit with any club in his hand (L50D2a). The interesting question in B is whether East's diamond is AI or UI. It seems clearly UI to declarer because it was declarer's infraction that caused it to be revealed. I believe it is also UI to West because EW were also at fault for not calling the TD. -----End included article----- So what's wrong? Well for one thing, deciding between A and B will probably take more time than the TD can afford at the table. Also, John Probst says the standard EBU ruling is neither A nor B, but I wonder whether he thought about L11A. Comments? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 03:10:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LH9aI21276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LH9Ut21272 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:09:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id RB8QB2VS; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:09:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:12:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk herman wrote: >The bidding : > >- 2di 2cl 2di >3cl - - ?? > >The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now >wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > >The one that bid them first of course. > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? > >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > >After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for >2005. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL It took me about 10 seconds to find it. REH 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 Tue Aug 22 03:17:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LHFqp21312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:15:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LHFkt21308 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:15:46 +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 13QvAk-000CRz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: <+EJKFIAmNWo5Ewbr@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:14:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@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 In article <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >The bidding : > >- 2di 2cl 2di >3cl - - ?? > >The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now >wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > >The one that bid them first of course. > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? Chapter 1, definitions. First place I looked. :)) But I did know Law 41 refers to presumed declarer, so the definition of declarer is where to go. john > >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > >After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for >2005. > -- 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 Aug 22 03:43:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LHfrI21335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:41:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LHflt21331 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22297; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:41:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200008211741.KAA22297@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:14:08 PDT." <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:41:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [WARNING!! Spoiler follows---stop reading if you don't know the answer and want to find it for yourself] > The bidding : > > - 2di 2cl 2di > 3cl - - ?? > > The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now > wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > > The one that bid them first of course. > > But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for > 2005. I looked at the ACBL on-line version of the Laws, and went to the index. The entry for Declarer looks like: Declarer Becomes dummy by facing hand after opening lead out of turn - 54 Facing of hand after opening lead out of turn - 54 Play of dummy's hand - 41 - 42 - 45 Right after irregularity - 9 The numbers are references to law numbers. There's no reference, however, to the general question of "who becomes declarer". I agree that it's not obvious who would be found in the Definitions section; if I were trying to find the answer to this question, this isn't the first place I would look. But it would certainly help if the index pointed me there, e.g. Declarer - [Definitions] Becomes dummy by facing hand after opening lead out of turn - 54 Facing of hand after opening lead out of turn - 54 Play of dummy's hand - 41 - 42 - 45 Right after irregularity - 9 In fact, the index in this version of the laws does not refer to the Definitions section at all, for any term defined in the Definitions. I think this is a flaw in the index, and probably the indexes in some of the other published versions of the Laws have the same flaw. But I don't believe the Laws need to be changed. -- 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 Tue Aug 22 04:02:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LI1CB21354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 04:01:12 +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 e7LI16t21350 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 04:01:07 +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 LAA22636; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:01:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200008211801.LAA22636@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:41:41 PDT." <200008211741.KAA22297@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:01:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I scrawled: > [WARNING!! Spoiler follows---stop reading if you don't know the > answer and want to find it for yourself] > The numbers are references to law numbers. There's no reference, > however, to the general question of "who becomes declarer". I agree > that it's not obvious who would be found in the Definitions section; > if I were trying to find the answer to this question, this isn't the > first place I would look. Before I get a lot of responses from people trying to figure out what language I'm speaking [it's Californian, a mutant language with a vague resemblance to American], let me fix my error: "I agree that it's not obvious that the answer would be found in the Definitions section . . ." -- 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 Tue Aug 22 06:38:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LKagO21427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 06:36:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe23.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7LKaat21423 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 06:36:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:36:28 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.18.30] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200008211701.NAA02867@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:38:17 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2000 20:36:28.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[7B4B2B00:01C00BAF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 12:01 PM Subject: [BLML] Penalty card | Here's an article from RGB. The more I think about my answer, the | less I like it. Perhaps BLML readers will have some thoughts. | | -----Begin included article----- | | "Andy Bowles" writes: | > South is declarer. | > | > During the play, South leads a spade, West plays a club, and, before the | > revoke is established, replaces it with a spade, leaving the club face up on | > the table. Everyone at the table believes that the club is a major penalty | > card, and no one suggests that the director should be called. | > | > Later, East becomes on lead, whilst West's club is still face up. Before | > South has a chance to say anything, East, who believes that he understands | > this area of the Laws but does not, leads a diamond. | > | > South calls the director and explains that he wishes to exercise his right | > to require a club lead. East has a club. | | First read out Law 9B1a: "The Director must be summoned at once when | attention is drawn to an irregularity." PP's all around for the | violation, probably warnings unless this is a repeat offense for one | or both sides. | | Then read out L11A about forfeiture of the right to penalize. | | I can see two possible rulings: | | A. If East's _prior_ play has been affected by not knowing about the | lead penalty -- could he profitably have refused the trick, for | example? -- the diamond lead stands. The penalty card remains, and | there _may_ be future lead penalties, but only if East's prior play | no longer matters. | | B. If East's prior play was unaffected, then he picks up the diamond | and leads a club as required. Contrary to what some other posters | have written, the diamond does not become a penalty card. (L11A: if | East had known about the lead penalties, he would never have led a | diamond.) West picks up his club and can follow suit with any club | in his hand (L50D2a). | | The interesting question in B is whether East's diamond is AI or UI. | It seems clearly UI to declarer because it was declarer's infraction | that caused it to be revealed. I believe it is also UI to West | because EW were also at fault for not calling the TD. | | -----End included article----- | | So what's wrong? Well for one thing, deciding between A and B will | probably take more time than the TD can afford at the table. Also, | John Probst says the standard EBU ruling is neither A nor B, but I | wonder whether he thought about L11A. | | Comments? On reading L49 it specifies that the errant card is a PC. No ifs and or buts. L50 specifies that when partner gains the lead he must wait for declarer to select his option. No ifs and or buts there either. Now, the partner gained the lead and did not wait and declarer wants to exercise his option. L11 seems to have something to say: LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALISE A. Action by Non-Offending Side The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. So the question is whether the declarer acted after the partner lead without waiting. And the answer is no. Declarer did not select the penalty nor did he act before selecting it. However, that the NOS acted after the revoke speaks to nullifying right to penalize the revoke/ its correction, not the effects of the PC. The defenders had ample opportunity to comply with the requirement to summon the director before correcting the revoke. They acted on their own [presumed] misunderstanding. Which seems to make L9C relevant: C. Premature Correction of an Irregularity Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further penalty (see the lead penalties of Law 26). If the facts of the case are correct, revoker failed to call the director which means that he has prematurely corrected his irregularity. L9C does not require he suffer further penalty, but certainly suggests that if other infractions are committed in ignorance of the consequences he is not immune from paying a price. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 07:28:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7LLQTr21458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:26:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7LLQNt21454 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:26:24 +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 13Qz5H-000Faa-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:26:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:43:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? References: <200008211741.KAA22297@mailhub.irvine.com> <200008211801.LAA22636@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200008211801.LAA22636@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 <200008211801.LAA22636@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Before I get a lot of responses from people trying to figure out what >language I'm speaking [it's Californian, a mutant language with a >vague resemblance to American], let me fix my error: "I agree that >it's not obvious that the answer would be found in the Definitions >section . . ." > > -- Adam >-- Is this why the Pilgrim fathers left Plymouth in 1620? I can see why they were persecuted 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 10:08:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M06oA21553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:06:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7M06ht21549 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:06:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax1-port-08.pinehurst.net [63.160.175.72]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA67803; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:06:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <002b01c00bcc$d7cf60e0$48afa03f@mom> From: "nancy" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:06:37 -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 This question was on one of my director tests!! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:14 AM Subject: [BLML] Who's declarer ? > The bidding : > > - 2di 2cl 2di > 3cl - - ?? > > The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now > wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > > The one that bid them first of course. > > But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for > 2005. > > -- > 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 Tue Aug 22 11:25:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M1OAH21586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:24:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7M1O4t21582 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:24:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:23:56 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [194.222.6.72] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Cc: "John Probst" , "Brian Meadows" Subject: [BLML] Computers and Maastricht Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:24:16 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2000 01:23:56.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4458EB0:01C00BD7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk cc John Probst, Brian Meadows Hi all! The address I gave you all for Brighton [hotmail as below] was no use - I did not get online - sorry. I got back from Brighton to find my main computer down. This will lead to no end of problems if it is not sorted before Maastricht, which it probably will not me. So, if you want to send me an email during the next three weeks it is helpful to send it to both the eddresses below - but I make no guarantees whether I shall be able to answer it within the next month. Probably! :) I had great fun at Brighton with Eitan Levy - we had to teach him the words "just gone two" which is when English Directors stop drinking and go to bed - he told people five o'clock, which was not tactful! I shall tell all the stories when I get online properly, including some Law 12C3 stories. Law 12C3 was never appealed, and in most cases accepted without question by both sides. I do hope to see you at Maastricht. I found at Lille that Appeals Committee members have a problem arranging to have dinner with people because they are in appeals till later than the players, but i do hope that I can spend an evening with as many of you as possible - I presume you realise I am on the Appeals Committee. I will tell you my hotel and phone numbers there if I get my computer back - if I don't then I have no idea how to find my hotel out anyway!!!!! If you really cannot find me in Maastricht then Grattan will presumably know where I am - I understand he is arranging appeals. You could even ring my mobile phone in England - 0044 7778 409955 - that might get me! I would really appreciate it if someone who posts on rec.games.bridge or even rec.games.bridge.okbridge would copy this there: my backup system has no newsgroup access. I have sent a copy to John Probst for RGB and Brian Meadows for RGBO but in case they do not see it in time please could someone else: I do not want to miss seeing friends in Maastricht because of my computer problems. -- 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 Tue Aug 22 11:45:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M1hhh21623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:43:43 +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 e7M1hdt21619 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:43:39 +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 e7M1hbK20774 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:43:37 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:43:36 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules, the following end position arose... x xxx x x - - xxx xx - Kx xxx xxx x A AQxx - With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're always wrong and he can't understand them. Declarer takes up his hand and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is then cashed followed by the high diamonds. "Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we might have gotten a club trick too". West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to your AH". "Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" "Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? 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 Tue Aug 22 12:14:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M2DGJ21645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:13:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7M2DCt21641 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:13:12 +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 MAA24464 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:09:20 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:09:49 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3 (Intl)) with SMTP id 2000082212070453:32469 ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:07:04 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A256943.000C1C5C ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:12:16 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256943.000C1AA2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:12:08 +1000 Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 22/08/2000 12:07:04, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 22/08/2000 12:07:05, Serialize complete at 22/08/2000 12:07:05 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] They had asked me if the player could have changed his bid, after he had noticed that it was the right one. I told them he could have. Even when it was in fact partner's answer that told him to look once again at the bidding card in front of him. They asked me if he was wrong in NOT changing his unintentional call. I told them the law says he COULD change it, not that he should. And yet they found that he was in some way responsible. Of course he might have known the laws better, at which time this would not have happened. So they decided to give him a symbolic penalty of 1 IMP. I don't argue with that ..." [snip] I *do* argue with that. Under L40A, South is entitled to make almost any call they like, provided there is no partnership agreement. The only exception is L40E; for example the ACBL prohibits the psyching of strong artificial opening bids. However, even if Belgium has a regulation prohibiting the psyching of *any* convention, that regulation would not apply in this case as the misbid was inadvertant, not deliberate. No infraction, no penalty. 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 Tue Aug 22 13:55:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M3sQW21693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:54:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7M3sLt21689 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:54:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na835783 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:53:57 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-227.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.227]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Geeky-MailRouter V2.9 9/14218771); 22 Aug 2000 13:53:56 Message-ID: <002501c00c50$ceac76e0$ccd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:50:27 +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 After the Venice Cup in January 2000, BLML discussed ideas about alternatives to Slow Play fines. Browsing through some old editorials of The Bridge World today, I came across Edgar Kaplan's comments: January 1982 Editorial: "For the first time in years, you will not see match results and standings distorted by point penalties for slow play. As we discussed last September, the WBF decided to experiment with a new approach to this old problem: instead of score penalties, there would be a sort of "penalty box", as in hockey - penalized pairs would be barred from playing in their team's next 16-board segment (or for two segments or even three, in cases of repeated or grotesque slowness). The hope was that treating slow play as a personal, disciplinary matter (like discourtesy) rather than as a score-adjusted matter involving the team (like a revoke) would both reduce the effect on the tournament, and do a better job of scaring slow-pokes into maintaining a sensible tempo. After all, every bridge expert knows that he can overcome an IMP or Victory Point penalty through his own brilliant bridge, but his team cannot possibly survive if he is forced to sit out. How did it work? Like a charm! In some 300 segments of play, not even one penalty had to be imposed." and December 1983 footnote on page 7 of the BW reads: **Fractional scores came from slow-play penalties, once again being imposed (see October Editorial). A senior bridge politician was stationed in each room - if the table exceeded the time limit, he would make an official guess, not subject to appeal, as to which side was the more responsible. An irony: I, as Vu-Graph commentator, had this peculiar duty for the Vu-graph table.** (I being Edgar) I don't have the Sept 81 or Oct 83 issue. My questions to BLML are: (1) Does anyone know why the "sit out 16 board" idea was abandoned by the WBF? (2) Is the "sit out 16 board" concept a good idea, worth reintroducing at major tournaments? 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 Aug 22 14:42:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M4eT421718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7M4ePt21714 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:40:25 +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 e7M4eLK28975 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:40:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:40:21 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs In-Reply-To: <002501c00c50$ceac76e0$ccd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > My questions to BLML are: > > (1) Does anyone know why the "sit out 16 board" idea was > abandoned by the WBF? > > (2) Is the "sit out 16 board" concept a good idea, worth > reintroducing at major tournaments? First, it is only useful when there can be a monitor at every table. Second, it can only be useful when the threat is real, i.e. to a six-person team. This means that it can only be part of the CoC for events where six-person teams are the norm or required. Then the CoC also has to deal with the case where a pair is benched for slow play but all four of the other four players are not available (e.g. rostered match off with side activity organised, illness, had to go home early) Not a bad thought though. 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 Tue Aug 22 16:16:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M6DAH21763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:13:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7M6D0t21759 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:13:01 +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 QAA25379 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:09:08 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:09:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:09:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 22/08/2000 16:06:30 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: "My questions to BLML are: (1) Does anyone know why the "sit out 16 board" idea was abandoned by the WBF?" In the October 1983 Bridge World Editorial, Edgar Kaplan ironically noted that the "sit out 16 board" idea was a failure, subverted by players who decided to play faster rather than sit on the bench. This meant that ACs had much less work to do, as there were no appeals against the severity of slow play fines. To prevent administrators sitting idle on ACs, the WBF restored the previous system of slow play fines. Peter Gill also wrote: "(2) Is the "sit out 16 board" concept a good idea, worth reintroducing at major tournaments?" To which Mark Abraham replied: "Then the CoC also has to deal with the case where a pair is benched for slow play but all four of the other four players are not available" The original "sit out 16 board" CoC provided that if two pairs of one team were slow in the same segment, for the next 16 boards the team would have to interchange players to form new partnerships. 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 Tue Aug 22 18:49:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M8lbj21824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:47:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from camelia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-10.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.59]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7M8lUt21820 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:47:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by camelia.wanadoo.fr; 22 Aug 2000 10:43:29 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.27.70) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 22 Aug 2000 10:43:27 +0200 Message-ID: <008701c00c15$4622b4a0$461bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Mark Abraham" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:45:06 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello! This is a very simple one, IMHO : After a claim, play cease and any subsequent play is canceled. So I cancel the play of AH, the "revoke", ask the declarer what was his claim about, probably AD, D ruff and his hand is high, give him all the tricks and (try to) explain EW that as soon as something "strange" appens, they must call me! Same ruling, but with many revokes accured in Geneva between F.Willard, an italian pair, TD was the Russian one. Kenavo O.Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 3:43 AM Subject: [BLML] Provoked Revoke > Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to > know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as > their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules, the > following end position arose... > > x > xxx > x > x > - - > xxx xx > - Kx > xxx xxx > x > A > AQxx > - > > With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and > starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" > and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". > Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a > claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, > harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're > always wrong and he can't understand them. > > Declarer takes up his hand and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. > He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is > then cashed followed by the high diamonds. > > "Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we > might have gotten a club trick too". > > West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to > your AH". > > "Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" > > "Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. > > You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 19:39:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M9chs21852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:38:43 +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 [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7M9cXt21844 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:38:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-70.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.70]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02847 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:38:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A14467.E73B140E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:01:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] double ruling References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000821091008.00aaf740@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > I would have doubled in W's position, huddle notwithstanding. Simple > bridge logic suggests that a hand that was willing to invite 3NT freely > cannot be prepared to defend an undoubled contract at the 3-level, so I > would take E's pass as forcing, and I therefore see no LA to doubling. > > I would not, however, rule this way prima facie. I would talk to E-W, ask > them what they were thinking about, find out if they had any agreement or > had had any discussion about such positions, etc. In other words, I would > not impose my own (perhaps idiosyncratic) thinking on W. But if he > defended his double along the lines I've suggested, I would be sympathetic, > and would allow the double to stand. > These were the kind of arguments he did in fact give. I consulted with some players and one of them did state something like this. Yes, this player will always do this double, with or without the huddle. In the end, I felt it was too close and so I disallowed the double just to teach him a lesson. He should really have doen the actively ethical thing and say to partner afterwards, "if you hadn't thought, I would have doubled". -- 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 Aug 22 19:39:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M9cid21853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:38:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7M9cZt21845 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:38:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-70.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.70]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02869 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:38:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A14529.515ED356@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:05:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] double ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20000821114527.00868530@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > After much consideration, the director - a well-known man in this office - > disallowed the double. > > Was he right ? > If you want to hear DWS disagreeing, you should tell him that it was me! Oh and perhaps we should congratulate AG for winning this event despite serving on 3 AC's AND playing all 54 boards on the one day. -- 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 Aug 22 19:49:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7M9muS21876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:48:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7M9mnt21872 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:48:50 +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 LAA27810; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:49:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA03963; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:48:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:57:57 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <39A137EB.3086238@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:08 21/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I don't argue with that, but I do argue with what they did >next : they gave the money back. >I feel that even if they discuss this for half an hour, and >award a penalty to the opponent, that there was no merit in >the appeal and the money ought not have been refunded. Well, there is something more in that appeal. The non-offending side said that not correcting the bid was in some way detrimental to them (correcting to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue normally). So, although one is not compelled to correct the bid, active ethics say you should. We now had to determine whether the bidder was aware of that possibility. He is a very experienced player (he had won the pairs event, after all) but somewhat unconcerned about ethics. So we went out of the logical way and gave him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. As the NOS clearly stated their appeal was not for score redress, which they knew they weren't entitled to, but because they thought their opponent should not escape without blame, and since this is what we said, the appeal was in fact vindicated. So on which grounds should we keep the deposit ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 20:06:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MA6I821899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:06:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh02nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh02nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MA6Ct21895 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:06:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:06:04 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:05:28 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Sent: 21. August 2000 17:09 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 > > > Same tournament, third appeal > > bd20 97 > W/all AJ62 > 84 > J10642 > 1054 AJ6 > 10753 KQ98 > AKQ93 J762 > 8 A5 > KQ832 > 4 > 105 > KQ973 > > W N E S > - - 1NT 2he > 3NT - - - > > West asked about the meaning of 2 hearts, and got the reply > "hearts and a minor". > South later explained to me that when he heard this replay, > he looked down before him and noticed that the wrong bid was > there. he had of course intended to bid 2 spades. (spades > and a minor) > He had said nothing, believing he could not change his bid. > > Although no CC was at hand, I chose to believe (from > experience with the pair, knowledge of the common systems in > their surroundings, and the hand) that the explanation had > been correct. > In fact the opponents agreed with this. > > So there was no MI, and no ruling. > > East-West were outraged, not believing that their bad score > could stay after such an obvious mistake. > > I urged them not to appeal, but they did so anyway. > > The AC took a very long time in arriving at a decision. > They heard everyone, and me, and concluded that I had been > right in my ruling. > > And then they did something strange. > > They had asked me if the player could have changed his bid, > after he had noticed that it was the right one. > I told them he could have. Even when it was in fact > partner's answer that told him to look once again at the > bidding card in front of him. Partner's question i UI, isn't? How can a player change his call (inadvertent or otherwise) using the UI? > > They asked me if he was wrong in NOT changing his > unintentional call. > I told them the law says he COULD change it, not that he > should. > And yet they found that he was in some way responsible. > > Of course he might have known the laws better, at which time > this would not have happened. > > So they decided to give him a symbolic penalty of 1 IMP. Pls, dear BLMLers, let someone explain this to me. South misbid. He learned about his mistake through UI. He decided to accept the consequences of his mistake which I beleive the vast number of bridge players would do. Well, anyway , I'd do that. And he was penalized for this. I don't understand that. HELP!!!!! Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 22 20:25:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MAPOV21941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:25:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MAPHt21937 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:25:17 +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 MAA27192; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:23:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA24364; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:24:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000822123425.008d0c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:34:25 +0200 To: Mark Abraham , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke 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 11:43 22/08/00 +1000, Mark Abraham wrote: >Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to >know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as >their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules AG : looks like you love them :) , the >following end position arose... > > x > xxx > x > x >- - >xxx xx >- Kx >xxx xxx > x > A > AQxx > - > >With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and >starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" AG : he should have let South explain his line of play, since he obviously did want to. He is responsible for the mess. >and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". >Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a >claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, >harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're >always wrong and he can't understand them. > >Declarer takes up his hand AG : wrong ! he should have called the director. and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. AG : nobody said nothing ??? Seems like they were more busy exchanging hate-loaded looks than looking at the play. Well, there is law 64B3 : dummy doesn't revoke. >He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is >then cashed followed by the high diamonds. >"Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we >might have gotten a club trick too". >West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to >your AH". >"Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" >"Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. >You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? 1. I demand they club together in buying me aspirine. 2. West is responsible of the mess, for his badly-timed interjection, refusal to hear at South's line, not noticing dummy's 'revoke', not calling the director in due time. 3. South is partly responsible for not having called the director, contributing to the mess. Unless I have good reason to think he voluntarily played the diamond from dummy (and this is a very extreme position), that's all. 4. Result stands. Whoever bypassed 65 decibel is penalized according to law 74A2. All players receive a warning (at least) according to law 75B1. 5. I hate you. My lunch time has expired. 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 Aug 22 20:49:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MAlGh21969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:47:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MAl9t21965 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:35:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:34:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to >know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as >their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules, the >following end position arose... > > x > xxx > x > x >- - >xxx xx >- Kx >xxx xxx > x > A > AQxx > - > >With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and >starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" >and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". >Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a >claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, >harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're >always wrong and he can't understand them. > >Declarer takes up his hand and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. >He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is >then cashed followed by the high diamonds. > >"Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we >might have gotten a club trick too". > >West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to >your AH". > >"Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" > >"Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. > >You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? As declarer correctly stated, he claimed, and play ceases after that. He didn't state a line of play, but on the other hand he was prevented to do so by the opponents. As far as I can see, declarer wanted to ruff a diamond, return to hand and enjoy the rest of the diamonds. I give him therefore all remaining tricks. I also tell that it is allowed to claim, that it is never allowed to continue play after a claim and, offhand to South, I advise him not to claim against this pair. -- 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 Tue Aug 22 21:46:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MBiVg22045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MBiOt22040 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-157.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.157]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02825 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:44:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A25370.9F5BF526@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:18:24 +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: [BLML] Who's declarer ? References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > In the definitions, Chapter 1. > OK, many of you have indeed found it. Do you really believe this is the correct place ? Isn't this a piece of "how the game is played", not of definition ? Like : A small penalty card is ... not an honour. honour is in the definitions, correct. But small penalty card is where it belongs, in the Laws themselves. When the Laws describe Hearts, Aces and claims, should they not also describe this most elementary of practices : declarer and dummy. I found it ought to have been in L22. The final call becomes the contract, and ... becomes declarer, and .. becomes dummy. > >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > Four minutes. How'd I do? :-) better than I ! -- 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 Aug 22 21:46:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MBiQv22041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:26 +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 [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MBiJt22035 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-157.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.157]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02818 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:44:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A25208.1AB3A425@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:12:24 +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: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <4A256943.000C1AA2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > No infraction, no penalty. > The "infraction" that the AC found was the one of not knowing that this call could have been changed without penalty, and of not asking to do so. I'm not certain if this is a particularly strong "infraction", but it can always fall under "failure to take due notice of the game". -- 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 Aug 22 21:46:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MBirG22057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MBiht22049 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-157.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.157]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02936 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:44:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A256A4.4C234807@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:32:04 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > > Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to > know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as > their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules, the > following end position arose... > > x > xxx > x > x > - - > xxx xx > - Kx > xxx xxx > x > A > AQxx > - > > With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and > starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" > and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". > Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a > claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, > harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're > always wrong and he can't understand them. > > Declarer takes up his hand and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. > He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is > then cashed followed by the high diamonds. > > "Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we > might have gotten a club trick too". > > West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to > your AH". > > "Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" > > "Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. > > You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? > > Mark Abraham There has been a claim and we rule on that. There was going to be a claim statement which was interrupted. I do not rule in any manner against this declarer. six tricks to him. -- 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 Aug 22 21:46:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MBipp22056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MBift22047 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:44:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-157.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.157]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02887 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:44:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A255B5.A5CBAB7C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:28:05 +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: [BLML] Penalty card References: <200008211701.NAA02867@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Here's an article from RGB. The more I think about my answer, the > less I like it. Perhaps BLML readers will have some thoughts. > [snipped] non-established revoke and penalty card, without calling the director. Let me first state that I don't particularly mind the non-calling of the director, as long as everything goes according to the laws. So : -if the PC is left open on the table; -if the player had no opportunity of playing it yet; -if it is the first time that his partner had the lead; and -if he has played sufficiently quickly so that declarer has not had time to ask or refuse (it seems as if these conditions are met) then, I rule that partner did not fulfil his duty as of L50D2 (not play until ...) and be subject to additional penalties. That means : lead penalties and the other card becomes a MPC. In any other situation : I rule that declarer has lost his powers to have the lead penalties, and I allow the lead, and impose lead penalties from the next trick. If the PC has been picked up however, and play has continued, I rule that declarer has lost all powers to penalties and there is no PC. -- 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 Aug 22 21:56:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MBsp722088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:54:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tamaris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-12.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MBsit22083 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:54:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by tamaris.wanadoo.fr; 22 Aug 2000 13:50:41 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.107.25) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 22 Aug 2000 13:50:39 +0200 Message-ID: <001801c00c2f$52c4cf80$196bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "alain gottcheiner" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: <3.0.6.32.20000822123425.008d0c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:51:32 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 11:43 22/08/00 +1000, Mark Abraham wrote: > >Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to > >know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as > >their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules > > AG : looks like you love them :) > > , the > >following end position arose... > > > > x > > xxx > > x > > x > >- - > >xxx xx > >- Kx > >xxx xxx > > x > > A > > AQxx > > - > > > >With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and > >starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" > > AG : he should have let South explain his line of play, since he obviously > did want to. He is responsible for the mess. > > >and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". > >Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a > >claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, > >harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're > >always wrong and he can't understand them. > > > >Declarer takes up his hand > > AG : wrong ! he should have called the director. > > and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. > > AG : nobody said nothing ??? Seems like they were more busy exchanging > hate-loaded looks than looking at the play. Well, there is law 64B3 : dummy > doesn't revoke. > > >He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is > >then cashed followed by the high diamonds. > >"Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we > >might have gotten a club trick too". > >West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to > >your AH". > >"Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" > >"Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. > >You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? > > 1. I demand they club together in buying me aspirine. I agree > 2. West is responsible of the mess, for his badly-timed interjection, > refusal to hear at South's line, not noticing dummy's 'revoke', not calling > the director in due time. I still agree > 3. South is partly responsible for not having called the director, > contributing to the mess. I don't agree, he is probably knowing L68D > Unless I have good reason to think he voluntarily played the diamond from > dummy (and this is a very extreme position), that's all. He knows L68D :-) > 4. Result stands. Whoever bypassed 65 decibel is penalized according to law > 74A2. All players receive a warning (at least) according to law 75B1. ??? Is my book too old? I have L 75 A B C D1 & D2 but not 75B1. New laws in 2000'? > 5. I hate you. My lunch time has expired. I don't. Mine too, I need a coffee > > Alain. > Olivier > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 22 22:22:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MCLHm22183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:21:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MCL5t22179 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd8s13a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.125.217] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RD0P-0004kN-00; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 05:18:14 -0700 Message-ID: <000301c00c33$0b10f520$d97d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20000821114527.00868530@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] double ruling Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:16:35 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > Although 3D was only 1 down, and thus the difference was only between -50 > and -100, > it was decisive in determining the end result of the Swiss event.**** > > Was he right ? > > Regards, > > A. > +=+ ****Oh, indeed, in that case, yes he certainly was right! Who would have me say otherwise unless there was a significant misapplication of law? ~ 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 Aug 22 22:23:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MCMHg22195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:22:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MCM7t22185 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:22:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd8s13a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.125.217] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RD0K-0004kN-00; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 05:18:13 -0700 Message-ID: <000201c00c33$0a36c1c0$d97d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Endicott" , "paul endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "cathie ritchie" Cc: "Nick Doe" , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] interruptions Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:12:26 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from pa7s06a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.86.168] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RD7i-0004tv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 05:25:47 -0700 Message-ID: <001701c00c34$18ed2000$d97d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Computers and Maastricht Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:23:11 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Cc: John Probst ; Brian Meadows Sent: 22 August 2000 02:24 Subject: [BLML] Computers and Maastricht > cc John Probst, Brian Meadows > > Hi all! > > The address I gave you all for Brighton [hotmail as below] was no use - > I did not get online - sorry. > > I got back from Brighton to find my main computer down. This will lead > to no end of problems if it is not sorted before Maastricht, which it > probably will not me. So, if you want to send me an email during the next > three weeks it is helpful to send it to both the eddresses below - but I > make no guarantees whether I shall be able to answer it within the next > month. Probably! :) > > I had great fun at Brighton with Eitan Levy - we had to teach him the > words "just gone two" which is when English Directors stop drinking and go > to bed - he told people five o'clock, which was not tactful! I shall tell > all the stories when I get online properly, including some Law 12C3 stories. > Law 12C3 was never appealed, and in most cases accepted without question by > both sides. > > I do hope to see you at Maastricht. I found at Lille that Appeals > Committee members have a problem arranging to have dinner with people > because they are in appeals till later than the players, but i do hope that > I can spend an evening with as many of you as possible - I presume you > realise I am on the Appeals Committee. I will tell you my hotel and phone > numbers there if I get my computer back - if I don't then I have no idea how > to find my hotel out anyway!!!!! > > If you really cannot find me in Maastricht then Grattan will presumably > know where I am - I understand he is arranging appeals. You could even ring > my mobile phone in England - 0044 7778 409955 - that might get me! > > I would really appreciate it if someone who posts on rec.games.bridge or > even rec.games.bridge.okbridge would copy this there: my backup system has > no newsgroup access. I have sent a copy to John Probst for RGB and Brian > Meadows for RGBO but in case they do not see it in time please could someone > else: I do not want to miss seeing friends in Maastricht because of my > computer problems. > > -- > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 00:02:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MDxf322255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:59:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MDxZt22251 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:59:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4af.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.79]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA30851; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005501c00c41$89dacf80$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Martin Sinot" , "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:01:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If he has a claim he Should claim. We cannot let the petty ignoramuses have their way. Let them learn to accept proper claims or find another activity. In all other respects I agree with you of course...but the right to claim approaches that of an obligation if we dont want interminable matches and do want time to think when needed. Let those who "don't like" claims learn to play bridge under the laws. Craig Senior I give >him therefore all remaining tricks. I also tell that it is allowed >to claim, that it is never allowed to continue play after a claim and, >offhand to South, I advise him not to claim against this pair. > >-- >Martin Sinot -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 00:32:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MEUND22277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:30:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MEUGt22273 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:30:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 13RF47-000443-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:30:11 +0100 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 To: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael's message of Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:12:24 +0200 Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:30:11 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Konrad Ciborowski] ; Pls, dear BLMLers, let someone explain this to me. ; South misbid. He learned about his mistake through UI. ; He decided to accept the consequences of his mistake ; which I beleive the vast number of bridge players would ; do. Well, anyway , I'd do that. And he was penalized ; for this. ; I don't understand that. HELP!!!!! In case Konrad thinks he's the only one whose is moved to 5 exclamation marks by the AC decision in this case, I'd better register my amazement too. Herman and Alain have said: [Herman DE WAEL] > The "infraction" that the AC found was the one of not > knowing that this call could have been changed without > penalty, and of not asking to do so. > > I'm not certain if this is a particularly strong > "infraction", but it can always fall under "failure to take > due notice of the game". [alain gottcheiner ] : Well, there is something more in that appeal. The non-offending side said : that not correcting the bid was in some way detrimental to them (correcting : to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue normally). So, : although one is not compelled to correct the bid, active ethics say you : should. : We now had to determine whether the bidder was aware of that possibility. : He is a very experienced player (he had won the pairs event, after all) but : somewhat unconcerned about ethics. So we went out of the logical way and : gave him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. Herman talks of an "infraction" and Alain of "active ethics" saying a player "should" correct a misbid. May I remind them of these quotes: Law 25 A. Immediate Correction of Inadvertency Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law. B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply: Scope and Interpretation of the Laws section: When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong. Note the places where the word 'may' occurs in the above. The Laws unambiguously state that South did not do anything wrong in failing to correct his misbid. On what grounds did South lose an IMP in the AC? What next: there's no rule that requires you to tell opponents that your weak two was made on a 7 card suit but Active Ethics requires that you show him your hand just to be safe? Herman, David et al: don't let my absence at Maastricht prevent you from staying in the bar till the small hours of the morning. --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 00:39:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MEcEV22289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:38:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MEc7t22285 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:38:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4af.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.79]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15954; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006601c00c46$dfb1f640$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:40:08 -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 The Pilgrim fathers left to escape religious persecution. The Californians migrated in search of gold. With each 3000 mile move the language mutated an equivalent amount. As for the Pilgrims, your jolly lot tried to persecute them after they emigrated with unjust taxation...which is why we no longer fly the union jack, nor for all our religious freedom implore the deity to save HRH. Somehow we did manage to find a garden hose or two after 9-1-39, and I think you'll agree that overpaid oversexed an over here marked an improvement over ein volk, ein Reich ein Fuehrer. Now our two nations separated by a common language and a wee ocean are recognizing the profound shift of the mother tongue by like, y'know. duh valley people. :-) And we wonder why it is hard to write laws that everyone can understand clearly! And I understand the folk to the north of us in the land of the moose (eh?) and the cobbers in the former penal colony think we are all a bit daft the way we talk. The wonder of it is we all manage to share a lot more than that which separates us...this internet does make a bully pulpit, what? Craig Adam Beneschan > writes >> >>Before I get a lot of responses from people trying to figure out what >>language I'm speaking [it's Californian, a mutant language with a >>vague resemblance to American], let me fix my error: "I agree that >>it's not obvious that the answer would be found in the Definitions >>section . . ." >Is this why the Pilgrim fathers left Plymouth in 1620? I can see why >they were persecuted here :)) cheers john >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 00:54:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MErjd22306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:53:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f84.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MErdt22302 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:53:32 -0700 Received: from 212.198.0.95 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [212.198.0.95] From: "Eitan Levy" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:53:32 IDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2000 14:53:32.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD9DFC00:01C00C48] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: RE: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 >Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:05:28 +0300 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: EXT Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > > Sent: 21. August 2000 17:09 > > To: Bridge Laws > > Subject: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 > > > > > > Same tournament, third appeal > > > > bd20 97 > > W/all AJ62 > > 84 > > J10642 > > 1054 AJ6 > > 10753 KQ98 > > AKQ93 J762 > > 8 A5 > > KQ832 > > 4 > > 105 > > KQ973 > > > > W N E S > > - - 1NT 2he > > 3NT - - - > > > > West asked about the meaning of 2 hearts, and got the reply > > "hearts and a minor". > > South later explained to me that when he heard this replay, > > he looked down before him and noticed that the wrong bid was > > there. he had of course intended to bid 2 spades. (spades > > and a minor) > > He had said nothing, believing he could not change his bid. > > > > Although no CC was at hand, I chose to believe (from > > experience with the pair, knowledge of the common systems in > > their surroundings, and the hand) that the explanation had > > been correct. > > In fact the opponents agreed with this. > > > > So there was no MI, and no ruling. > > > > East-West were outraged, not believing that their bad score > > could stay after such an obvious mistake. > > > > I urged them not to appeal, but they did so anyway. > > > > The AC took a very long time in arriving at a decision. > > They heard everyone, and me, and concluded that I had been > > right in my ruling. > > > > And then they did something strange. > > > > They had asked me if the player could have changed his bid, > > after he had noticed that it was the right one. > > I told them he could have. Even when it was in fact > > partner's answer that told him to look once again at the > > bidding card in front of him. > >Partner's question i UI, isn't? How can a player >change his call (inadvertent or otherwise) using >the UI? > > > > > > They asked me if he was wrong in NOT changing his > > unintentional call. > > I told them the law says he COULD change it, not that he > > should. > > And yet they found that he was in some way responsible. > > > > Of course he might have known the laws better, at which time > > this would not have happened. > > > > So they decided to give him a symbolic penalty of 1 IMP. > > Pls, dear BLMLers, let someone explain this to me. >South misbid. He learned about his mistake through UI. >He decided to accept the consequences of his mistake >which I beleive the vast number of bridge players would >do. Well, anyway , I'd do that. And he was penalized >for this. > I don't understand that. HELP!!!!! > > > Konrad Ciborowski I agree 100% with Konrad. And furthermore I don't understand how the TD told the AC that south COULD change his bid. Even assuming the action of changing a call is a logical alternative to letting the original stand, he CANNOT choose this action as it is obviously demonstrably suggested by the UI. He has to let his original bid stand, ignore the UI,and take whatever result ensues (invariably bad for misbids.) Eitan Levy ________________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Aug 23 01:02:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MF0lZ22323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:00:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MF0ft22319 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:00:42 +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 IAA10306; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:00:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200008221500.IAA10306@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:43:36 PDT." Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:00:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: > Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to > know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as > their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules, the > following end position arose... > > x > xxx > x > x > - - > xxx xx > - Kx > xxx xxx > x > A > AQxx > - > > With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and > starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" > and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". > Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a > claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, > harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're > always wrong and he can't understand them. > > Declarer takes up his hand and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. > He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is > then cashed followed by the high diamonds. > > "Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we > might have gotten a club trick too". > > West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to > your AH". > > "Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" > > "Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. > > You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? Law 68D says that all play is voided after a claim, including the revoke. The TD requires declarer to repeat his clarification statement; in this case, since the opponents interrupted his first attempt at making a clarification statement, declarer will be making a complete statement for the first time, and whatever his statement is, I believe we have to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was his intended line when he claimed, since the opponents didn't let him make his statement the first time. The TD then rules on the claim based on this statement. The TD then explains the correct procedure for contested claims to everyone at the table, since it appears that all of them need an education in this. -- 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 Aug 23 01:06:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MF62J22335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:06:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MF5tt22331 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:05:56 +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 RAA13954; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:06:30 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id RAA27732; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:05:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000822171505.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:15:05 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif 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 rgb.anu.edu.au id e7MF5wt22332 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not write that up. If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to provide him with the full hands.' Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. bd16 K32 W/EW Q10542 K2 KJ8 Q865 AJ94 K873 A96 4 Q6 10932 AQ64 107 J AJ1098753 75 W N E S - 1H X 4D - - - North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : -well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a fragment. So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' 'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? When it became obvious to E/W that 4D was natural, they called de Director. He duly decided this somewhat intricated case in the favor of the NOS, even though they were not completely without blame. Yes, East should have guessed, but not doing so is not an egregious error. He thus changed the score to 4D doubled -2, 300 to E/W. N/S appealed. The AC considered several matters, such as the degree of obviousness of the situation, the contradiction in North's statements and actions (was it possible that he knew 4D was a Splinter, guessed that parner went wrong, and thus did not dare to say it too definitely ?). One problem we had was that North maintained he had never used the word 'Splinter', but only agreed to a suggestion from the Director. After a painful enquiry, the facts were established as above, and we were thoroughly convinced that North had meant 'Splinter' all the time, so that the director didn't in fact do anything wrong, except telling us the case in a way slightly different of what happened. Now, we considered the proper action from North. Of course, if he explains the bid as a raise of any type, he should not pass. When he bids 4H, whatever N/S do now will cost them substantially more than 300. So we thought that Herman had in fact been kind to N/S. We finally decided to let -300 stand, albeit one member clearly stated it was on the verge of undue indulgence to the OS for the reason stated above. Of course we kept the deposit (well, it is not a huge amount : about 12 $, the same in €). Your comments will, as usual, be appreciated. 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 Aug 23 01:29:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MFRZD22367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:27:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MFRSt22363 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:27:29 +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 RAA18343; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:28:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id RAA07206; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:27:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000822173639.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:36:39 +0200 To: "Craig Senior" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke In-Reply-To: <005501c00c41$89dacf80$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:01 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote: >If he has a claim he Should claim. We cannot let the petty ignoramuses AG : of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? have >their way. Let them learn to accept proper claims or find another activity. >In all other respects I agree with you of course...but the right to claim >approaches that of an obligation if we dont want interminable matches and do >want time to think when needed. Let those who "don't like" claims learn to >play bridge under the laws. AG : I like that one comment ! But from Mark's initial comments, it is IOTTMCO West disliked South as much as the laws, and that South wasn't smiling at West either, and this had some impact on the way West behaved. Perhaps also in South's mistake. But once and for all, we should tell all careless claimers that the right (or obligation) to claim is accompanied by a duty to spontaneously disclose the line of play. One way I have found efficient (and I pride myself on being a great time saver) is to put my cards on the table in quick succession, in the order in which I intend to play them. My intention is thus evident in case the claim is contested. 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 Aug 23 01:29:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MFRmj22373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:27:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MFRft22369 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:27:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id p.d9.8ab08cb (4197); Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:27:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:27:28 EDT Subject: [BLML] Maastricht Championships To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ltegreene@vistana.com, Schoders@aol.com, PanellaM@aol.com, Susi421@aol.com, 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 We will be leaving 23rd early AM for Maastricht. Hotel Golden Tulip. Until the 11th of September. I'll be periodically checking E-Mail during that time. Bud and 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 Wed Aug 23 01:31:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MFUUL22392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MFUNt22388 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4af.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.79]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02464; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00bb01c00c4e$3a906d60$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "alain gottcheiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:32:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain, are you using tabs or something? The hands are virtually unreadable in this format. Otherwise thanks for an interesting case. I would have ruled no adjustment by the way unless I had reason to suspect North was fibbing. He was unsure about the agreement (or apparent lack of one), fully disclosed what he knew, then took a guess, with east aware that he was guessing long weak diamonds. Failure to double does seem egregious. There was no MI unless there i clear evidence that there was an agreement to play long diamonds or fragment or splinter. Perhaps North would have been well advised to simply say "we have no agreement" and let it go at that. His attempt to be more forthcoming seems to be what is being penalised here. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: alain gottcheiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:14 AM Subject: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif >I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not >write that up. >If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to >provide him with the full hands.' > >Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. > > >bd16 K32 >W/EW Q10542 > K2 > KJ8 >Q865 AJ94 >K873 A96 >4 Q6 >10932 AQ64 > 107 > J > AJ1098753 > 75 > >W N E S >- 1H X 4D >- - - > >North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : >-well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a fragment. > >So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he >would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a >Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. >The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' >'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. > >Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! > >Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have >guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he >look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a >Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? > >When it became obvious to E/W that 4D was natural, they called de Director. >He duly decided this somewhat intricated case in the favor of the NOS, even >though they were not completely without blame. Yes, East should have >guessed, but not doing so is not an egregious error. He thus changed the >score to 4D doubled -2, 300 to E/W. >N/S appealed. > >The AC considered several matters, such as the degree of obviousness of the >situation, the contradiction in North's statements and actions (was it >possible that he knew 4D was a Splinter, guessed that parner went wrong, >and thus did not dare to say it too definitely ?). > >One problem we had was that North maintained he had never used the word >'Splinter', but only agreed to a suggestion from the Director. After a >painful enquiry, the facts were established as above, and we were >thoroughly convinced that North had meant 'Splinter' all the time, so that >the director didn't in fact do anything wrong, except telling us the case >in a way slightly different of what happened. > >Now, we considered the proper action from North. Of course, if he explains >the bid as a raise of any type, he should not pass. When he bids 4H, >whatever N/S do now will cost them substantially more than 300. So we >thought that Herman had in fact been kind to N/S. >We finally decided to let -300 stand, albeit one member clearly stated it >was on the verge of undue indulgence to the OS for the reason stated above. > >Of course we kept the deposit (well, it is not a huge amount : about 12 $, >the same in €). > >Your comments will, as usual, be appreciated. > > Alain. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 23 01:32:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MFV4v22399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:31:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MFUwt22395 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15534 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008221532.LAA15534@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <006601c00c46$dfb1f640$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <006601c00c46$dfb1f640$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:32:54 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan writes >>> >>>Before I get a lot of responses from people trying to figure out what >>>language I'm speaking [it's Californian, a mutant language with a >>>vague resemblance to American], > >>Is this why the Pilgrim fathers left Plymouth in 1620? I can see why >>they were persecuted here :)) cheers john On 22 August 2000 at 10:40, "Craig Senior" wrote: >The Pilgrim fathers left to escape religious persecution. The Californians >migrated in search of gold. [...] Now our two nations >separated by a common language and a wee ocean are recognizing the profound >shift of the mother tongue by like, y'know. duh valley people. :-) And we >wonder why it is hard to write laws that everyone can understand clearly! >And I understand the folk to the north of us in the land of the moose (eh?) >and the cobbers in the former penal colony think we are all a bit daft the >way we talk. The wonder of it is we all manage to share a lot more than that >which separates us...this internet does make a bully pulpit, what? > I'm sorry for the one-line followup, but all I can say to this is: http://www.adcritic.com/content/molson-canadian-i-am.html (requires Quicktime. Text - and a few parodies - at http://bart.uwaterloo.ca/~mj3brown/cdnrant.html ) 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 Wed Aug 23 01:50:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MFnoV22431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:49:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MFnht22427 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e7MFnf215811 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200008221549.e7MFnf215811@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:49:41 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Mark Abraham" at Aug 22, 2000 02:40:21 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 Mark Abraham writes: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > > > My questions to BLML are: > > > > (1) Does anyone know why the "sit out 16 board" idea was > > abandoned by the WBF? > > > > (2) Is the "sit out 16 board" concept a good idea, worth > > reintroducing at major tournaments? > > First, it is only useful when there can be a monitor at every table. > > Second, it can only be useful when the threat is real, i.e. to a > six-person team. This means that it can only be part of the CoC for events > where six-person teams are the norm or required. Then the CoC also has to > deal with the case where a pair is benched for slow play but all four of > the other four players are not available (e.g. rostered match off with > side activity organised, illness, had to go home early) There's also the problem of pairs who are only going to play the absolute minimum number of boards. If a sponsor isn't going to play anymore after his 2nd session, there is no meaningful threat against him -- or his partner. Come to think of it though there is a fairly simple answer. If you pick up a time suspension, that session doesn't count towards the minimum boards played. > Not a bad thought though. -- 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 Aug 23 01:58:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MFuwr22446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:56:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MFupt22442 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:56:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4af.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.79]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA26542; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c601c00c51$edbdd820$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "alain gottcheiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:59:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: alain gottcheiner >At 10:01 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote: (CS)>>If he has a claim he Should claim. We cannot let the petty ignoramuses > >AG : of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but >is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? Perhaps I am mistaken...it would be far from the first time...but I was under the impression that the word had been transliterated from the Latin and that the plural could have been ignorami if not anglicized? While hippopotami retains clear meaning, I do not think ignorami would to most English speakers. Can someone educate me as to what is correct in Grattan's absense? I do not have an OED to consult. 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 Wed Aug 23 02:10:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MG9HG22463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:09:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MG9At22459 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:09:11 +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 QAA09613 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:09:01 GMT Message-ID: <39A2A59C.1F235C96@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:00 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif References: <00bb01c00c4e$3a906d60$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior a écrit : > > Alain, are you using tabs or something? The hands are virtually unreadable > in this format. Otherwise thanks for an interesting case. I would have ruled > no adjustment by the way unless I had reason to suspect North was fibbing. > He was unsure about the agreement (or apparent lack of one), fully disclosed > what he knew, then took a guess, with east aware that he was guessing long > weak diamonds. Failure to double does seem egregious. There was no MI unless > there i clear evidence that there was an agreement to play long diamonds or > fragment or splinter. Perhaps North would have been well advised to simply > say "we have no agreement" and let it go at that. But he was prompted by a director (?) to tell "how he would take the bid". I am wondering if the OS was not the TD! I think the AC should especially have tried to know what were NS's agreements; maybe North was reluctant to tell all that he knew from prior partnership experience or understanding, maybe not; and for the deposit confiscation, i remain speechless. (the hands were in very good form for my mailer, nothing like below). > His attempt to be more > forthcoming seems to be what is being penalised here. Or the crime of "lack of agreement", or a reputation of bad ethics, we were not there to appreciate... JP Rocafort > > Craig Senior > > -----Original Message----- > From: alain gottcheiner > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:14 AM > Subject: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif > > >I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not > >write that up. > >If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to > >provide him with the full hands.' > > > >Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. > > > > > >bd16 K32 > >W/EW Q10542 > > K2 > > KJ8 > >Q865 AJ94 > >K873 A96 > >4 Q6 > >10932 AQ64 > > 107 > > J > > AJ1098753 > > 75 > > > >W N E S > >- 1H X 4D > >- - - > > > >North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : > >-well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a > fragment. > > > >So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he > >would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a > >Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. > >The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' > >'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. > > > >Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! > > > >Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have > >guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he > >look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a > >Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? > > > >When it became obvious to E/W that 4D was natural, they called de Director. > >He duly decided this somewhat intricated case in the favor of the NOS, even > >though they were not completely without blame. Yes, East should have > >guessed, but not doing so is not an egregious error. He thus changed the > >score to 4D doubled -2, 300 to E/W. > >N/S appealed. > > > >The AC considered several matters, such as the degree of obviousness of the > >situation, the contradiction in North's statements and actions (was it > >possible that he knew 4D was a Splinter, guessed that parner went wrong, > >and thus did not dare to say it too definitely ?). > > > >One problem we had was that North maintained he had never used the word > >'Splinter', but only agreed to a suggestion from the Director. After a > >painful enquiry, the facts were established as above, and we were > >thoroughly convinced that North had meant 'Splinter' all the time, so that > >the director didn't in fact do anything wrong, except telling us the case > >in a way slightly different of what happened. > > > >Now, we considered the proper action from North. Of course, if he explains > >the bid as a raise of any type, he should not pass. When he bids 4H, > >whatever N/S do now will cost them substantially more than 300. So we > >thought that Herman had in fact been kind to N/S. > >We finally decided to let -300 stand, albeit one member clearly stated it > >was on the verge of undue indulgence to the OS for the reason stated above. > > > >Of course we kept the deposit (well, it is not a huge amount : about 12 $, > >the same in €). > > > >Your comments will, as usual, be appreciated. > > > > 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/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 02:22:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MGM7K22480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:22:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MGM1t22476 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:22:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11602; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:21:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200008221621.JAA11602@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:15:05 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000822171505.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:21:57 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not > write that up. > If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to > provide him with the full hands.' > > Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. > > > bd16 K32 > W/EW Q10542 > K2 > KJ8 > Q865 AJ94 > K873 A96 > 4 Q6 > 10932 AQ64 > 107 > J > AJ1098753 > 75 > > W N E S > - 1H X 4D > - - - > > North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : > -well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a fragment. > > So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he > would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a > Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. > The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' > 'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. > > Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! > > Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have > guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he > look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a > Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? > > When it became obvious to E/W that 4D was natural, they called de Director. > He duly decided this somewhat intricated case in the favor of the NOS, even > though they were not completely without blame. Yes, East should have > guessed, but not doing so is not an egregious error. He thus changed the > score to 4D doubled -2, 300 to E/W. > N/S appealed. > > The AC considered several matters, such as the degree of obviousness of the > situation, the contradiction in North's statements and actions (was it > possible that he knew 4D was a Splinter, guessed that parner went wrong, > and thus did not dare to say it too definitely ?). > > One problem we had was that North maintained he had never used the word > 'Splinter', but only agreed to a suggestion from the Director. After a > painful enquiry, the facts were established as above, and we were > thoroughly convinced that North had meant 'Splinter' all the time, so that > the director didn't in fact do anything wrong, except telling us the case > in a way slightly different of what happened. > > Now, we considered the proper action from North. Of course, if he explains > the bid as a raise of any type, he should not pass. This appears to be a gross misunderstanding of the Laws. You can't change North's call unless you think it was based on UI, and you haven't given any indication that this is a UI case. More on this below. > When he bids 4H, > whatever N/S do now will cost them substantially more than 300. So we > thought that Herman had in fact been kind to N/S. > We finally decided to let -300 stand, albeit one member clearly stated it > was on the verge of undue indulgence to the OS for the reason stated above. > > Of course we kept the deposit (well, it is not a huge amount : about 12 $, > the same in €). > > Your comments will, as usual, be appreciated. > > Alain. I think the TD and AC forgot to ask the most important question: Was there misinformation? To answer this, we need to know: What was N-S's actual agreement? If the actual agreement was that 4D was a splinter, no infraction was committed, and the table result stands (4D, undoubled, down whatever). No law says that either North or South has to bid in accordance with their agreements, and if North somehow guesses that South has misbid, he's allowed to bid whatever he wants, unless: (1) South somehow gave an indication (such as by making a face after the alert, as a partner of mine did once) that South forgot the system, in which case North has UI. (2) North suspects, from partnership experience, that 4D was really a long suit. In this case, I'd rule that the "splinter" explanation was misinformation, dealt with as below. If the actual agreement (explicit, or implied from partnership experience) was that 4D was a long suit, then we have to determine what the most probable/likely favorable result would have been had E/W been given the correct information. The question that needs to be asked is, "If East and West had had the correct information, how would *their* actions had differed---and how would things have progressed after that?" Suppose, for instance, you judge that after 1H-X-4D, with West knowing that 4D shows a long suit, that West would have passed anyway. YOU CANNOT CHANGE NORTH'S CALL AT THIS POINT, since the only question to be asked is, would E/W have done anything different if given the correct information? If we judge West would have changed his pass to a double, i.e. 1H-X-4D-X, now we *could* change North's call if we think that's more likely over a double. But on North's actual hand, there's no reason to think North would have done anything besides passing. So what would the most likely result be, if the N-S agreement were "long suit" and E-W had been given the correct information? I don't know. 4S is on, but it's hard to get to. I can imagine that East, with 15 useful HCP and four cards in each unbid suit, might find another takeout double (expecting West to convert with a dull hand), and E-W would get to 4S for +620 (+650 is possible but only with misdefense). To sum up, here's my ruling: (1) If the splinter explanation is correct, no adjustment, score as 4D undoubled; except that if North's pass was based on UI, adjust to 4H doubled, down 5, +1100 for E/W. (2) If the splinter explanation is deemed to be misinformation, adjust to +620 for E/W. Note that I think adjusting to +300 for E/W cannot be right, if the Laws are applied correctly. -- 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 Aug 23 02:24:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MGMwV22488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:22:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MGMnt22482 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:22:50 +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 QAA09957 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:22:41 GMT Message-ID: <39A2A8D0.4F962B12@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:22:40 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke References: <00c601c00c51$edbdd820$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior a écrit : > > -----Original Message----- > From: alain gottcheiner > > >At 10:01 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote: > (CS)>>If he has a claim he Should claim. We cannot let the petty ignoramuses > > > >AG: of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but > >is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? > > Perhaps I am mistaken...it would be far from the first time...but I was > under the impression that the word had been transliterated from the Latin > and that the plural could have been ignorami if not anglicized? While > hippopotami retains clear meaning, I do not think ignorami would to most > English speakers. Can someone educate me as to what is correct in Grattan's > absense? I do not have an OED to consult. > I didn't know the english word of "ignoramus" and have not the slightest idea of what maybe its plural, but I don't think it comes from a Latin name like dominus (plural domini) or opus (plural opera). I think "ignoramus" is a conjugated form of the verb ignorare (1st person, plural, present) and means litteraly "we don't know". who knows? JP Rocafort > Craig > -- ___________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 03:07:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MH6J122532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:06:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MH6Dt22528 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:06:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12384; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:06:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200008221706.KAA12384@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:22:40 PDT." <39A2A8D0.4F962B12@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:06:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Craig Senior a écrit : > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: alain gottcheiner > > > > >At 10:01 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote: > > (CS)>>If he has a claim he Should claim. We cannot let the petty ignoramuses > > > > > >AG: of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but > > >is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? > > > > Perhaps I am mistaken...it would be far from the first time...but I was > > under the impression that the word had been transliterated from the Latin > > and that the plural could have been ignorami if not anglicized? While > > hippopotami retains clear meaning, I do not think ignorami would to most > > English speakers. Can someone educate me as to what is correct in Grattan's > > absense? I do not have an OED to consult. > > > I didn't know the english word of "ignoramus" and have not the slightest > idea of what maybe its plural, but I don't think it comes from a Latin > name like dominus (plural domini) or opus (plural opera). I think > "ignoramus" is a conjugated form of the verb ignorare (1st person, > plural, present) and means litteraly "we don't know". who knows? > > JP Rocafort My (American) English dictionary says that the word "ignoramus" comes from "Ignoramus, ignorant lawyer in Ignoramus (1615), play by George Ruggle, from Latin, literally, we are ignorant of". So it was never really a Latin noun, apparently. -- 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 Aug 23 03:12:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MHBF222568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:11:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MHB9t22564 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 03:11:09 +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 NAA17615 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008221713.NAA17615@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <00c601c00c51$edbdd820$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <00c601c00c51$edbdd820$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:13:08 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 22 August 2000 at 11:59, "Craig Senior" wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: alain gottcheiner > > >>At 10:01 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote: >(CS)>>If he has a claim he Should claim. We cannot let the petty ignoramuses >> >>AG : of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but >>is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? > > >Perhaps I am mistaken...it would be far from the first time...but I was >under the impression that the word had been transliterated from the Latin >and that the plural could have been ignorami if not anglicized? While >hippopotami retains clear meaning, I do not think ignorami would to most >English speakers. Can someone educate me as to what is correct in Grattan's >absense? I do not have an OED to consult. > As we at U(W) developed and implemented the online OED, I do happen to have a copy at hand... calum: oed ignoramus | more ignoramus (Igno'reIm&schwa.s). Pl. -uses (-&schwa.sIz), also +-us. [L., = `we do not know', (in legal use) `we take no notice of [it]'.] [snip 4 lines of definition and 200 of references] It was a verb, not a noun, so definately wouldn't be ignorami. And, yes, I was surprised at that, though obviously Alain was not. Michael (only problem is, you don't get to pass all those interesting words while searching for the one you're looking for. Means I don't spend 2 hours every time I open my dictionary, but it isn't as much fun.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 07:18:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MLCmP22661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:12:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MLCht22657 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra770085 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:31:56 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-3.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.3]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Formulae-1-MailRouter V2.9 17/1155205); 22 Aug 2000 11:31:54 Message-ID: <004d01c00c3c$f6873100$9be036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:25:29 +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 Roger Pewwick wrote: >>Steve Willner wrote: >> Here's an article from RGB. The more I think about my answer, >> the less I like it. Perhaps BLML readers will have some thoughts. >> >> -----Begin included article----- >> >> Andy Bowles wrote: >>> South is declarer. >>> >>> During the play, South leads a spade, West plays a club, and, >>> before the revoke is established, replaces it with a spade, >>> leaving the club face up on the table. Everyone at the table >>> believes that the club is a major penalty card, and no one >>> suggests that the director should be called. >>> >>> Later, East becomes on lead, whilst West's club is still face >>> up. Before South has a chance to say anything, East, who >>> believes that he understands this area of the Laws but does >>> not, leads a diamond. >>> >>> South calls the director and explains that he wishes to >>> exercise his right to require a club lead. East has a club. >> >> First read out Law 9B1a: "The Director must be summoned >> at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." PP's all >> around for the violation, probably warnings unless this is a >> repeat offense for one or both sides. >> >> Then read out L11A about forfeiture of the right to penalize. >> >> I can see two possible rulings: >> >> A. If East's _prior_ play has been affected by not knowing about >> the lead penalty -- could he profitably have refused the trick, for >> example? -- the diamond lead stands. The penalty card remains, >>and there _may_ be future lead penalties, but only if East's prior >> play no longer matters. >> >> B. If East's prior play was unaffected, then he picks up the >> diamond and leads a club as required. Contrary to what >> some other posters have written, the diamond does not >> become a penalty card. (L11A: if East had known about >> the lead penalties, he would never have led a diamond.) >> West picks up his club and can follow suit with any club >> in his hand (L50D2a). >> >> The interesting question in B is whether East's diamond is >> AI or UI. It seems clearly UI to declarer because it was >> declarer's infraction that caused it to be revealed. I believe >> it is also UI to West because EW were also at fault for not >> calling the TD. >> >> -----End included article----- >> >> So what's wrong? Well for one thing, deciding between A >> and B will probably take more time than the TD can afford >> at the table. Also, John Probst says the standard EBU >> ruling is neither A nor B, but I wonder whether he thought >> about L11A. >> >> Comments? > >On reading L49 it specifies that the errant card is a PC. No >> ifs and or buts. L50 specifies that when partner gains the >> lead he must wait for declarer to select his option. No ifs >> and or buts there either. Now, the partner gained the lead >> and did not wait and declarer wants to exercise his option. >> L11 seems to have something to say: > >LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALISE >A. Action by Non-Offending Side >The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either >member of the non-offending side takes any action before >summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the >non-offending side may have gained through subsequent >action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. > >So the question is whether the declarer acted after the partner >lead without waiting. And the answer is no. Declarer did not >select the penalty nor did he act before selecting it. However, >that the NOS acted after the revoke speaks to nullifying right >to penalize the revoke/ its correction, not the effects of the PC. > >The defenders had ample opportunity to comply with the >requirement to summon the director before correcting the >revoke. They acted on their own [presumed] misunderstanding. >Which seems to make L9C relevant: > >C. Premature Correction of an Irregularity >Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may >subject him to a further penalty (see the lead penalties of Law 26). > >If the facts of the case are correct, revoker failed to call the >director which means that he has prematurely corrected his >irregularity. L9C does not require he suffer further penalty, >but certainly suggests that if other infractions are committed >in ignorance of the consequences he is not immune from >paying a price. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > In a major Australian event in 1979, an almost identical situation arose. The main differences were: - the diamond lead and South's call for the director were simultaneous (neither being related to the other; South happened to remember that there were lead penalties just as the diamond was led), and - different Laws applied then. After some Australian uncertainty about the interpretation of Law 11A, the Director wrote to Edgar Kaplan, who discussed the whole situation in an editorial of The Bridge World in about 1980 or 1981 (alas I do not have a copy). IIRC, Edgar's conclusions were similar to Roger Pewick's, and I suspect that the subsequent addition of the last sentence of Law 11A and the expansion of the wording of Law 50D2 [that offender's partner "may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options ..."] may have been affected by this Australian case. I am confident that my recall is accurate, although I have not accessed the previous Laws nor the relevant BW magazine. Someone with old copies of the BW would be able to check what Edgar thought about the situation. 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 Wed Aug 23 07:34:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MLXUk22674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:33:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MLXNt22670 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:33:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14801 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2000 21:33:15 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bill) (209.186.14.202) by server06.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 22 Aug 2000 21:33:15 -0000 Message-ID: <010101c00c7f$ed9dde20$ca0ebad1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:28:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following is the definition as shown in the American Heritage Dictionary; it would appear that ignoramuses is correct!!! ig·no·ra·mus (¹g"n.-r³"m.s) n., pl. ig·no·ra·mus·es. An ignorant person. [New Latin ignoramus, a grand jury's endorsement upon a bill of indictment when evidence is deemed insufficient to send the case to a trial jury, from Latin, we do not know, first person pl. present tense of ignorare, to be ignorant. See IGNORE.] Cheers...................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean Pierre Rocafort To: Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke > > > I didn't know the english word of "ignoramus" and have not the slightest > idea of what maybe its plural, but I don't think it comes from a Latin > name like dominus (plural domini) or opus (plural opera). I think > "ignoramus" is a conjugated form of the verb ignorare (1st person, > plural, present) and means litteraly "we don't know". who knows? > > JP Rocafort > > > Craig > > > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > 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 > ___________________________________________________ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 23 08:18:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMGVm22724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:16:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MMGJt22713 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:16:20 +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 13RML5-0005ca-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:16:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:46:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A References: <3yvcNwAyEsk5Ew40@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 Gordon Bower wrote: > > >On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >[snip] >> >change it if they do so immediately"; that is 100% accurate. But the idea >> >that they may change it after a significant delay (even when they realize >> >for the first time that it was inadvertent) is counter-intuitive, and must >> >be learned. It took three separate occurrences of my asking my wife why >> >she made some apparently ridiculous bid, her replying "I pulled the wrong >> >bid card, but by the time I noticed I assumed it was too late to do >> >anything", and my attempting to educate her on the subtlety of L25A, before >> >she learned that she should attempt to correct an inadvertent call as soon >> >as she notices it, even if some time may have passed. IMO players would be >> >more intuitively comfortable than they are now with a law that provided for >> >immediate corrections only. >> >> No, "would have been", not "would be". I would be happy if we had >> never had this Law, but now we have had it for many years, and now its >> use has become commonplace, I do not think we are going to make the >> average player happier by going backwards. Note that my disagreement >> with David B's proposal of no changes whatever is not that I think it >> wrong, but i think it too late to introduce now. > >I beg to differ. At least in the Western USA it has never become >commonplace. The vast majority of players have in their minds a sense that >going back and changing a call after a long time lapse shouldn't be >allowed, and many (myself included) who have learned that they have such a >right under the current laws find exercising this right so contrary to the >spirit of the game that they (we) never would. Asking to use L25B to get >an A- instead of a bottom after a silly bid would be one of the fastest >ways to get oneself labelled an obnoxious jerk of a bridge lawyer. (I'm >not saying that is right. Just that this is how it is currently.) > >In directing at the club and playing in several tournaments a year, I have >never seen anyone ask to make a delayed or purposeful correction, and can >recall two instances of mechanical errors being corrected after LHO had >bid. (They were both 4S-instead-of-Blackwood mispulls, and in one of the >two cases the 4NT card was missing altogether from the bid-box.) > >My conclusion: 25B has to go, and the sooner it goes, the fewer people >will have started taking advantage of the loophole it currently provides. Excuse me. I have *never* and will *never* have the slightest good word to say about L25B and the whole of the piece you quoted referred solely to L25A. The questions raised in this thread have been about inadvertent and immediate changes of call. I am surprised if the following happens in the Western USA: A player puts a 3S card down in front of him and then has a look at a passing waitress's legs. He then happens to glance down in front of him and finds a card saying 3NT. Are you suggesting he does nothing? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Aug 23 08:18:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMGSv22722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:16:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MMGJt22714 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:16:20 +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 13RML5-0005cb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:16:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:56:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Outstanding Trump References: <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> <71.5d702e3.26cbcef9@aol.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20000821104408.00a9fef0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <4.3.2.7.1.20000821090237.00b5b650@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000821090237.00b5b650@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:46 AM 8/21/00, Richard wrote: > >>Are there any other guidelines for gthe outstanding trump after a >>contested claim? >> >>Example: >> xxxx >> - >> - >> - >>- not important >>x >>xxx >>- >> - >> AKQ >> - >> A >> >>S claims for the rest of the trick (S on lead). >>How many tricks would you give >>a) an expert >>b) a rookie >>? > >I assume hearts are trump. > >Three. I wasn't there, but this sounds to me like exactly the situation in >which L70C specifically requires that the opponents get their trump. To >get all four tricks, S would have to convince me that it was not "at all >likely that [he] was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand", >and there's nothing in Richard's post to suggest that this would be >successful. My ruling would not be affected (directly; I don't deny that >an expert might make a better L70C2 argument) by my perception of >declarer's ability. Really? There is no case whatever for giving an expert an extra trick. Someone who understands the game and claims without mentioning trumps has forgotten it. But poorer players make poorer claim statements [David's claim Law]. Such a player should be more easily able to convince a TD he was aware of the missing trump. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Aug 23 08:18:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMGap22728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:16:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MMGSt22723 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:16:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RML5-0005cc-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:16:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:01:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Implicit agreements References: <4A256938.0012AD0D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3.0.6.32.20000811130847.008c1dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000811130847.008c1dd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 13:23 11/08/00 +1000, you wrote: >> >> >>Hypothetical: You are partnering a stranger, and have had no time to discuss >>system. On the first board pard opens 1H, and RHO asks, "Do you play 4 >card or 5 >>card majors?" >> >>Question one: If playing in Britain, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am >>taking it as a 4 card major." >> >>Question two: If playing in the USA, do you announce, "Undiscussed, but I am >>taking it as a 5 card major." >> >>Question three: If playing in New Zealand, do you announce, "Undiscussed, >but I >>am taking it as a fert?" > >AG : no to all three. Just announce 'undiscussed', and the opponents will >usually know what you will assume. >In Belgium, this will cause several more problems ; for example, the >opponents might turn to your partner and ask 'say something', because >5-card majors are more popular among French-speaking and Acol among >Dutch-speaking (though not by much). >But asking somebody what his/her mother tongue is is not allowed by our laws. I am sure you could comment on what a pretty frock s/he is wearing. If she is wearing a frock she will respond "Merci, monsieur" or whatever the Dutch say. If he is wearing a frock he will respond "Sal cochon" or whatever the Dutch say. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Aug 23 08:46:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMjDD22769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:45:13 +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-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MMj4t22765 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:45:05 +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 13RMmx-000Iul-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:44:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:43:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 1 References: <39A133A1.F4E7E4C0@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39A133A1.F4E7E4C0@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: >Over the weekend, an annual charity tournament that attracts >Belgium's finest. > >Strangely, it also featured 3 appeals. > >The first one involved L12C3 : > >bd2 Q104 >E/NS 10963 > 105 > K962 >AK976 532 >AJ KQ84 >K932 AJ >73 AQJ4 > J8 > 752 > Q8764 > 1085 > >W N E S > - 1cl - >2cl - 2NT - >3cl - 4NT - >5he - 6cl - >6NT - - - > >1 club was strong, and 2 clubs a strong relay. 2NT denied 5 >of a major and 3 clubs was intended as another relay, but >not interpreted that way. > >I saw no need to rule UI about the conversion to 6NT, but I >did have ears for Souths argumentation about his club lead. > >South said he had led clubs because they seemed safe to him, >since they had been bid on both sides. Of course this handed >the contract. >With another lead (except diamonds) declarer has to guess >the line and could finesse in diamonds in stead of clubs. > >Especially since West had forgotten to say anything before >the lead, I accepted that another lead would have been made. > >However, I found it less likely that this particular >declarer (not one of Belgium's finest) would choose a more >exotic line than the club finesse. > >So I allowed the result to stand. As a reason for not adjusting, this seems acceptable. However, this will not persuade West to follow the Laws in future: surely a PP was appropriate? -- 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 Aug 23 08:47:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMkOe22776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:46:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MMkHt22771 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:46:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02240 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:40:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 alain gottcheiner wrote: >So we went out of the logical way and >gave him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. Whatever happened to "the Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage"? 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/AwUBOaMCsr2UW3au93vOEQISjQCeLz2xoevXLHYQ8VV4grnlYktDWsIAnj1L nQfsC+deH6MAFY0rKGAelHjf =EFLr -----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 Aug 23 08:47:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMkU622781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:46:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MMkNt22777 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:46:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02249; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39A25370.9F5BF526@village.uunet.be> References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> <39A25370.9F5BF526@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:42:45 -0400 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:18 PM +0200 8/22/00, Herman De Wael wrote: >Do you really believe this is the correct place ? Yeah, I do. :-) >Isn't this a piece of "how the game is played", not of >definition ? Nope. 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/AwUBOaMCt72UW3au93vOEQIGDgCgzX6bwRbtUqag+iCSWcwu6vjdCDQAmwco VT5YTQ+Liwm1KQbkxfsI2dPl =njE3 -----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 Aug 23 08:51:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMoae22808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:50:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MMoUt22804 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:50:31 +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 13RMsI-000Dos-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:49:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <39A137EB.3086238@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 16:08 21/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>I don't argue with that, but I do argue with what they did >>next : they gave the money back. >>I feel that even if they discuss this for half an hour, and >>award a penalty to the opponent, that there was no merit in >>the appeal and the money ought not have been refunded. > >Well, there is something more in that appeal. The non-offending side said >that not correcting the bid was in some way detrimental to them (correcting >to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue normally). So, >although one is not compelled to correct the bid, active ethics say you >should. I think I am going to be sick. OK, so you have BLs in Belgium, too. I hope you shot the NOs for the good of the game? Oh, by the way, active ethics are something a player does [or does not do] not something someone else wishes on him. -- 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 Aug 23 08:59:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MMvu422821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:57:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MMvot22817 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:57:51 +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 13RMzO-000Dyz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:57:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1blDmvALUwo5EwaX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:56:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 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 Eitan Levy wrote: >And furthermore I don't understand how the TD told the AC that south COULD >change his bid. Even assuming the action of changing a call is a logical >alternative to letting the original stand, he CANNOT choose this action as >it is obviously demonstrably suggested by the UI. He has to let his original >bid stand, ignore the UI,and take whatever result ensues (invariably bad for >misbids.) I wonder whether it is as simple as that? South is not changing his bid. He is correcting an inadvertent transmission of the wrong bid. If he bid 2H meaning S+m of course he may not change it. But he did not. He bid 2S meaning S+m but by accident he produced a card that said something different. Does the fact hat it was UI that made him discover this mean he may not change it? I am not convinced. -- 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 Aug 23 09:11:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MN9oY22838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:09:50 +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 e7MN9it22834 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:09:44 +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 TAA04366 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA11051 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:09:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008222309.TAA11051@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > (2) Is the "sit out 16 board" concept a good idea, worth > reintroducing at major tournaments? Someone still has to make an official judgment on which pair(s) were slow. Of course that is required no matter what the punishment is. IIRC, the actual punishment was that the slow pair _could not play as partners_ in the next session. That allows for both pairs on a team being penalized and for teams of fewer than six players. If my memory is mistaken and this wasn't the actual rule, it probably should have been. What to do with clients or other weak players is a problem, but someone's suggestion that the session doesn't count towards the minimum would be a good start. TBW suggested in a recent editorial that the weak player be _required_ to play in the next session, but I don't think that sounds very helpful. Of course social penalties aren't necessarily effective in the final session. We might hope that the players have by then gotten used to playing at a reasonable speed, but there is no guarantee. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 09:14:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNCja22855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:12:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MNCct22851 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:12:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RNDc-000CJJ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:12:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:10:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif References: <3.0.6.32.20000822171505.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000822171505.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not >write that up. >If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to >provide him with the full hands.' > >Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. > > >bd16 K32 >W/EW Q10542 > K2 > KJ8 >Q865 AJ94 >K873 A96 >4 Q6 >10932 AQ64 > 107 > J > AJ1098753 > 75 > >W N E S >- 1H X 4D >- - - > >North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : >-well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a fragment. > >So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he >would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a >Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. >The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' >'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. > >Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! > >Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have >guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he >look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a >Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? So East clearly needed to know what the 4D bid meant, and he called the Director, who sent North away from the table, and South told them that they had an agreement that it shows diamonds, and they all lived happily ever after .... Then I woke up. When I eventually get a round tuit [or someone else does it for me] you will see what happened at Brighton when someone does not call 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 09:18:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNGk222867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:16:47 +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-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 e7MNGet22863 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:16:41 +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 13RNHY-000OcH-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:16:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:15:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >alain gottcheiner wrote: > >>So we went out of the logical way and >>gave him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. > >Whatever happened to "the Laws are primarily designed not as >punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage"? I don't know, but it certainly does not apply in the Laws of 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 09:21:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNKqR22879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:20:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MNKht22875 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RNLR-000OoZ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:20:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:19:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif References: <3.0.6.32.20000822171505.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 Stevenson wrote: >alain gottcheiner wrote: >>I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not >>write that up. >>If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to >>provide him with the full hands.' >> >>Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. >> >> >>bd16 K32 >>W/EW Q10542 >> K2 >> KJ8 >>Q865 AJ94 >>K873 A96 >>4 Q6 >>10932 AQ64 >> 107 >> J >> AJ1098753 >> 75 >> >>W N E S >>- 1H X 4D >>- - - >> >>North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : >>-well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a fragment. >> >>So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he >>would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a >>Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. >>The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' >>'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. >> >>Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! >> >>Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have >>guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he >>look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a >>Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? > > So East clearly needed to know what the 4D bid meant, and he called >the Director, who sent North away from the table, and South told them >that they had an agreement that it shows diamonds, and they all lived >happily ever after .... > > Then I woke up. > > When I eventually get a round tuit [or someone else does it for me] >you will see what happened at Brighton when someone does not call the >TD. ... But [as I was about to say when the software whooshed the post out into the night and sent it to Canberra] in this case the TD does not seem to have sorted matters out. I think the players have to be responsible for getting UI cases right through L73C. But MI cases can often be sorted by the TD if [a] he is called in time and [b] he uses his full powers. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Aug 23 09:28:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNQfL22892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:26:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MNQYt22888 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:26:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06534; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:16:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000822173639.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20000822173639.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:20:13 -0400 To: alain gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Cc: "Craig Senior" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:36 PM +0200 8/22/00, alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but >is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? Er, no. At least, not according to my Webster's Unabridged. The plural is "ignoramuses". Although I think Shelly Berman would have said "ignorami". :-) Um, the dictionary does refer back to the word's Latin origin: "ignorimus", meaning "we ignore you". *That's* plural. :=) >But once and for all, we should tell all careless claimers that the right >(or obligation) to claim is accompanied by a duty to spontaneously disclose >the line of play. I've been in South's position. I find it extremely rude of an opponent to interrupt my line of play statement. I've come to the conclusion that there is only one correct response to such: I call the TD, and when he arrives I say "I attempted to claim. I put down my hand, and I started to state my line of play, when West (or East) interrupted my statement with a request to 'play it out'". Full stop. It is now up to the TD to sort it out. If the interruption is too egregious, I would expect a ZT penalty here in the ACBL (but I probably wouldn't get one.) For the record, against those whom I *know* have problems with claims (one gentleman, who eventually, after *several* such incidents, complained to the TD that he "couldn't figure out whether a claim {*any* claim} is good or not", and one woman who basically makes Mrs. Guggenheim look like Rixi Markus) I try to remember *not* to claim, but sometimes I forget. Tough. In the case at hand, if the enmity between West and South looks like it might be or become a problem, I think the TD ought to caution them both. 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/AwUBOaMMA72UW3au93vOEQL4rACgzyP6JyrxFPNh93f53ujb3nz/kl0An3rf W5f2udYVIiq5cCVnxMLnbdJJ =lPYp -----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 Aug 23 09:28:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNQq822898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:26:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7MNQkt22894 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:26:46 +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 13RNRK-000P4s-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:26:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:25:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Anaheim Appeals Case 2 References: <399DB956.D2E42B8C@bellatlantic.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e7MNQnt22895 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mark Abraham wrote: >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Michael Kopera wrote: > >> The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that North went out of >> his way to explain the possibilities for his partner’s double, that it >> was possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she was relatively >> inexperienced. At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the >> table and had South explain the intent of the double. > >Was this a bridge Appeals Committee? Where in the Laws does it say that >a contestant's **intent** in a call or play is subject to disclosure? >E/W are entitled to an explanation of the agreements, experience and >understandings, not an accurate description of the South hand. It might >seem reasonable, but it ain't bridge. True. In these sort of situations E/W should not ask North to leave the table: they should call the TD and explain the problem. The TD will then ask North to leave the table, and explain to South that *if and only if* they have an agreement now is the moment to say so and to explain what 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 09:37:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNaeh22916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:36:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MNaYt22912 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:36:34 +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 TAA04894 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA11206 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:36:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008222336.TAA11206@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > > Now, we considered the proper action from North. Of course, if he explains > > the bid as a raise of any type, he should not pass. > > This appears to be a gross misunderstanding of the Laws. You can't > change North's call unless you think it was based on UI, This is certainly right. > and you > haven't given any indication that this is a UI case. It wouldn't be ridiculous to rule that North's pass "had to" be based on UI, even though the actual UI wasn't detected at the table. But there is no clear statement that this is what the AC thought. > I think the TD and AC forgot to ask the most important question: Was > there misinformation? To answer this, we need to know: What was N-S's > actual agreement? Exactly so. Also, how does it compare to the explanation given? I'm afraid that was less than clear to me. > The question that needs to be > asked is, "If East and West had had the correct information, how would > *their* actions had differed---and how would things have progressed > after that?" Exactly. > Note that I think adjusting to +300 for E/W cannot be right, if the > Laws are applied correctly. You don't believe that East might double again and West decide to pass for lack of anything better to do? Well, I don't really think so either, but it doesn't seem ridiculous, especially if the initial double may be offshape as is popular outside North America. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 09:45:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNi4H22933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:44:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com [139.134.5.236]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7MNi0t22929 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:44:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya094248 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:50:41 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-214-167.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.167]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Emblazoned-MailRouter V2.9 15/1493731); 22 Aug 2000 11:50:41 Message-ID: <006401c00c3f$976622a0$9be036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:38:28 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy wrote: >This question was on one of my director tests!! Herman wrote: >> But where does it say that in the Laws ? >> I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. >> It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. In Richard Grenside's article "Exploring the Laws Part 1" in August 2000's *Australian Bridge* magazine, Richard writes: "The hardest part of directing is knowing where to find the Law you are looking for. I once set a straightforward director's exam ... Use of the Laws book was permitted. Ten questions and three hours later most of the applicants were still scouring the rule book wih many complaining that although they knew the ruling, they couldn't find it in the book." Adam Beneschan wrote: >>> I looked at the ACBL on-line version of the Laws, and went >>> to the index. The entry for Declarer looks like: >>> >>> Declarer >>> Becomes dummy by facing hand after opening lead out of turn >>> - 54 >>> Facing of hand after opening lead out of turn - 54 >>> Play of dummy's hand - 41 - 42 - 45 >>> Right after irregularity - 9 That version is certainly better indexed than my "offline" Laws Book. 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 Wed Aug 23 09:47:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7MNjsf22945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:45:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7MNjlt22941 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA09043; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200008221621.JAA11602@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200008221621.JAA11602@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:36:21 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:21 AM -0700 8/22/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: > You can't change North's call unless you think it was based on UI [snip] >To sum up, here's my ruling: >(1) If the splinter explanation is correct, no adjustment, score as 4D > undoubled; except that if North's pass was based on UI, adjust to > 4H doubled, down 5, +1100 for E/W. >(2) If the splinter explanation is deemed to be misinformation, adjust > to +620 for E/W. I agree with your ruling, I think. But... and maybe this is a nit, or silly, or whatever, but you can't change North's call, period. When you are called to judge a case where a player may have used UI, I can find nothing in the laws that allows you to change the auction. Law 16A2 is specific: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law resulted in damage." What is changed is the *score*, not the auction. There are situations in which the law allows the TD to "roll back" the auction, or to require (or allow) a player to change his call. This isn't one of them. Like I said, it may be a nit, but it bugs me. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBOaMQo72UW3au93vOEQKbegCfVsP2UVQveWYd4oYEgu2T+AC0snsAnjKt mfBNIQB+ovU4dLOH4l1mTaQN =S68r -----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 Aug 23 10:03:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N02xG22964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:02:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N02rt22960 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:02:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18818; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:02:38 -0700 Message-Id: <200008230002.RAA18818@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:36:21 PDT." Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:02:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote, responding to me: > >You can't change North's call unless you think it was based on UI . . . > >To sum up, here's my ruling: > >(1) If the splinter explanation is correct, no adjustment, score as 4D > > undoubled; except that if North's pass was based on UI, adjust to > > 4H doubled, down 5, +1100 for E/W. My mistake---that should be down 6, maybe 7. > >(2) If the splinter explanation is deemed to be misinformation, adjust > > to +620 for E/W. > > I agree with your ruling, I think. But... and maybe this is a nit, or > silly, or whatever, but you can't change North's call, period. > > When you are called to judge a case where a player may have used UI, > I can find nothing in the laws that allows you to change the auction. > Law 16A2 is specific: "The Director shall require the auction and > play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he > considers that an infraction of law resulted in damage." What is > changed is the *score*, not the auction. My language was rather imprecise, perhaps. To adjust the score, you determine what would have likely happened had the infraction not occurred. If there was UI, then since North's pass was an infraction, you imagine what would have happened if North had made a call that followed the rules. That's what I meant by "changing North's call"; in the imaginary scenario that you create to determine the adjusted score, you do change North's call. But in a MI case, you would *not* change North's call in the same way; you wouldn't change the offenders' calls at all, except possibly for calls that occurred after the non-offenders change their calls now that they have received (in the imaginary auction) the correct information. That's the point I was trying to make. The AC in this case considered making North change his pass in the imaginary auction to 4H, which is totally wrong. Of course you don't roll back the auction or change any calls in the *real* auction; that's not what I meant. Hope this clarifies things, -- 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 Aug 23 10:18:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N0HL322981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop3.gte.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N0HEt22977 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust46.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.46]) by smtppop3.gte.net with ESMTP for ; id TAA13733868 Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:13:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <002901c00c88$1c2bec20$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: References: <3yvcNwAyEsk5Ew40@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:27:07 -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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I am surprised if the following happens in the Western USA: > > A player puts a 3S card down in front of him and then has a look at a > passing waitress's legs. He then happens to glance down in front of him > and finds a card saying 3NT. Are you suggesting he does nothing? > My experience in the Northwestern USA is that if bidding boxes are in use that L25A is applied almost without question. We bend over backwards to avoid penalizing LOL(M)'s who might be uncomfortable with bidding boxes. This makes the question that started this thread of genuine interest: how do we treat second hand's withdrawn call when first hand is allowed an L25A change? Skipping the responses that contend it can't happen, I have heard some suggest AI for NOS, UI for OS but L25A says "without penalty". Who then is the OS? Using L21 and calling first hand's inadvertent call MI makes the most sense to me but several respected voices have spoken strongly against that approach. I am awaiting consensus. Mike Dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 10:22:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N0LOV22993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:21:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N0LJt22989 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:21:19 +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 KAA08592 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:27 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:20:23 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 23/08/2000 10:15:11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The flaw with the current method of handling slow play by imp penalties was demonstrated in a semi-final of an American Trials in the early 80s. Team A played 6 imps better than Team B, but Team B played 6 imps faster. A 12 board playoff was won by Team B by one imp, and they subsequently won the Bermuda Bowl. In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan noted that while pair X from Team A had indeed been slow in the last segment, the corresponding pair Y at the other table from Team B was also slow. However, pair Z from Team A, who played against pair Y, were foolishly speedy. Pair Z frequently and quickly claimed, which meant that they lost their chance at the Bermuda Bowl because their table finished on time. Had pair Z played at normal pace, both teams would have been fined and Team A would have won the semi-final. 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 Wed Aug 23 10:36:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N0ZRO23006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:35:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N0ZLt23002 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:35:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19360; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:35:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200008230035.RAA19360@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:36:31 PDT." <200008222336.TAA11206@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:35:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Note that I think adjusting to +300 for E/W cannot be right, if the > > Laws are applied correctly. > > You don't believe that East might double again and West decide to pass > for lack of anything better to do? Well, I don't really think so > either, but it doesn't seem ridiculous, especially if the initial double > may be offshape as is popular outside North America. Actually, I do think that *might* happen---but that's irrelevant, because we're supposed to figure out the most favorable likely and "at all probable" results for E-W. So while I think E-W *might* defend 4D doubled, I think they also *might* get to 4S, which is better for them, and I think the chance of this is at least 1/3 (the cutoff for "likely" in the ACBL). Some people may differ, and think that getting to 4S is too remote after this start. OK, fine; if that's what the AC believes, then +300 would be the correct score. -- 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 Aug 23 10:56:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N0tE623031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N0t4t23022 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:05 +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 13ROol-000Hi5-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:55:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:32:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements 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 Richard wrote: > >My partner and I also have a two way agreement when opening or overcalling >a three level preempt. My preempts are stodgily old-fashioned, almost >always made with a seven card suit (could be a six card suit with 100 >honours). Pard, on the other hand, has no hesitation in preempting with >grotty six card suits. > >Should the opponents be pre-alerted to our differing preemptive styles? It >is possible that they may want to play takeout doubles versus my preempts, >and penalty doubles versus my partner's. Do you feel you are likely to get an advantage from not telling them? -- 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 Aug 23 10:56:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N0tEr23032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N0t4t23023 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:05 +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 13ROol-000Hi6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:55:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:36:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements References: <3.0.6.32.20000821113534.008cc100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000821113534.008cc100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 14:51 21/08/00 +1000, you wrote: >> >>My partner and I also have a two way agreement when opening or overcalling >>a three level preempt. My preempts are stodgily old-fashioned, almost >>always made with a seven card suit (could be a six card suit with 100 >>honours). Pard, on the other hand, has no hesitation in preempting with >>grotty six card suits. >> >>Should the opponents be pre-alerted to our differing preemptive styles? It >>is possible that they may want to play takeout doubles versus my preempts, >>and penalty doubles versus my partner's. > >AG : pre-alerting would be difficult indeed. But if my partner is >accustomed to unsound preempts, I would alert when he does one. And they >could still play "Fishbein vs unsound" if they want to (I've had this >agreement before). Why is pre-alerting difficult? Despite some people poring over CCs for a few minutes, and then saying "Oh, I can't read all *that*!", sensible players are only interested in a few things in advance: the things they need to defend to. pre-empts is an obvious case. Get a little card saying your pre-emptive style, and put it in front of oppos with your CC [or even better have an EBU CC with a space for stuff that needs pre-alerting]. I don't think that it will be much help to sorting out that they are playing "Fishbein v unsound" if the first they hear of it is when you alert. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Aug 23 10:56:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N0tKc23036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N0tDt23030 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:13 +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 13ROol-000Hi7-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:40:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card References: <200008211701.NAA02867@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 Roger Pewick wrote: >On reading L49 it specifies that the errant card is a PC. No ifs and or >buts. L50 specifies that when partner gains the lead he must wait for >declarer to select his option. No ifs and or buts there either. Now, >the partner gained the lead and did not wait and declarer wants to >exercise his option. L11 seems to have something to say: > >LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALISE >A. Action by Non-Offending Side >The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member >of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the >Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have >gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of >the penalty. > >So the question is whether the declarer acted after the partner lead >without waiting. And the answer is no. Declarer did not select the >penalty nor did he act before selecting it. However, that the NOS acted >after the revoke speaks to nullifying right to penalize the revoke/ its >correction, not the effects of the PC. > >The defenders had ample opportunity to comply with the requirement to >summon the director before correcting the revoke. They acted on their >own [presumed] misunderstanding. Which seems to make L9C relevant: > >C. Premature Correction of an Irregularity >Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject >him to a further penalty (see the lead penalties of Law 26). > >If the facts of the case are correct, revoker failed to call the >director which means that he has prematurely corrected his irregularity. >L9C does not require he suffer further penalty, but certainly suggests >that if other infractions are committed in ignorance of the consequences >he is not immune from paying a price. I do not necessarily argue with treating people somewhat harshly, but surely this case is OTT! I do not like people trapping their oppos through their ignorance of the Laws, and L11A seems to be designed to stop this happening. L49 has no ifs or buts? Correct, but I am going to deem otherwise via L50. What about 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 ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 11:47:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N1jVO23077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:45:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N1jOt23073 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14383; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:36:17 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:15 AM +0100 8/23/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>Whatever happened to "the Laws are primarily designed not as >>punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage"? > > I don't know, but it certainly does not apply in the Laws of Bridge. Then why is it in TFLB? Or has another incidence of British humour gone over my head? :-) 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/AwUBOaMsqL2UW3au93vOEQLmzwCZAYlMCR7VlexNEbpQvRm+aCC9XhAAoMar Sj3Nfu1RV6YXixxQnEMtCRtK =b1yI -----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 Aug 23 11:51:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N1p4v23090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N1out23086 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:50:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27856; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006401c00c3f$976622a0$9be036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <006401c00c3f$976622a0$9be036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:46:19 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:38 PM +1000 8/22/00, Peter Gill wrote: >In Richard Grenside's article "Exploring the Laws Part 1" in >August 2000's *Australian Bridge* magazine, Richard writes: > >"The hardest part of directing is knowing where to find the >Law you are looking for. I once set a straightforward director's >exam ... Use of the Laws book was permitted. Ten questions >and three hours later most of the applicants were still scouring >the rule book wih many complaining that although they knew the >ruling, they couldn't find it in the book." In "Duplicate Directions", the ACBL's guide for club TDs, it says something to the effect that one of the best things a new TD can do is to index TFLB. IOW, to sit down, go through the book, and write one's *own* index. Seemed like a good suggestion, to me. Someday, I'll get a rountuit. :-) 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/AwUBOaMt672UW3au93vOEQLCjACgvPZnszMGEtF8uYZBD9eTqD6Ndd4Aniwb m665t86a/Qdsud9EJ7wcG5RS =85b6 -----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 Aug 23 12:33:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N2VNg23114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:31:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N2VHt23110 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:31:18 +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 MAA26722 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:27:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:27:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two way agreements To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:30:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 23/08/2000 12:25:08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: "Why is pre-alerting difficult? Despite some people poring over CCs for a few minutes, and then saying "Oh, I can't read all *that*!", sensible players are only interested in a few things in advance: the things they need to defend to. pre-empts is an obvious case. Get a little card saying your pre-emptive style, and put it in front of oppos with your CC [or even better have an EBU CC with a space for stuff that needs pre-alerting]." The ABF CC also has a space for pre-alerting. In accordance with the advice of DWS, I have duplicated the note about pard's preemptive style which resided on page 3 of our card onto the front page pre-alert spot as well. But this does not answer my previous question about where you draw the line with pre-alerts. Unless we give a 30 minute lecture, strangers will remain at a disadvantage compared to our regular opponents in their preparedness for our system. For example, on Monday my partnership played against Mark Abraham. He knew that, in a particular auction, an apparently foolhardy psychic lead-directing double had a good chance of disrupting our system. Sure enough, he gained 11 imps. But it would be impossible to pre-alert strangers all the nuances of our methods, so that they could emulate Mark's success. 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 Wed Aug 23 14:16:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N4E9Q23170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:14:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7N4E5t23166 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ea210344 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:03:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-7.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.7]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Swaying-MailRouter V2.9 1/5902945); 23 Aug 2000 13:03:24 Message-ID: <009401c00d12$de496be0$07e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:45:49 +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 Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? > >I didn't know the english word of "ignoramus" and have not >the slightest idea of what maybe its plural, but I don't think it >comes from a Latin name like dominus (plural domini) or >opus (plural opera). I think "ignoramus" is a conjugated form >of the verb ignorare (1st person, plural, present) and means >literally "we don't know". who knows? Very impressive - who needs a dictionary? Rather surprising that the word "ignoramus" hasn't been used on BLML before. :)) Chambers Dictionary states: "IGNORAMUS: the word formerly written by a grand jury on the back of a rejected indictment: an ignorant person, esp. one pretending to knowledge:- pl. ignoramuses. 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 Wed Aug 23 15:05:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N54es23200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:04:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N54at23196 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:04:36 +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 e7N54ZK28299 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:04:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:04:34 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Definitions In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why is a claim defined in L68A, not in the definitions? Why is a revoked defined in L61A, and in the definitions? 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 Wed Aug 23 16:14:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N6D1C23238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:13:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f46.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N6Ctt23234 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:12:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:12:47 -0700 Received: from 212.198.0.95 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [212.198.0.95] From: "Eitan Levy" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:12:47 IDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2000 06:12:47.0984 (UTC) FILETIME=[28DBFF00:01C00CC9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Eitan Levy wrote: > > >And furthermore I don't understand how the TD told the AC that south >COULD > >change his bid. Even assuming the action of changing a call is a logical > >alternative to letting the original stand, he CANNOT choose this action >as > >it is obviously demonstrably suggested by the UI. He has to let his >original > >bid stand, ignore the UI,and take whatever result ensues (invariably bad >for > >misbids.) >David Stevenson wrote: > I wonder whether it is as simple as that? > > South is not changing his bid. He is correcting an inadvertent >transmission of the wrong bid. > > If he bid 2H meaning S+m of course he may not change it. But he did >not. > > He bid 2S meaning S+m but by accident he produced a card that said >something different. Does the fact hat it was UI that made him discover >this mean he may not change it? I am not convinced. > >-- >David Stevenson Law 16 uses the words _alternative actions_ not alternative calls, and changing a bid is an action. Eitan Levy ________________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Aug 23 17:49:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N7lfV23407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:47:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N7lYt23403 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:47:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.159.240] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13RI1j-0007jS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:39:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c00c5f$ebe5b460$f09f01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00c601c00c51$edbdd820$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> <39A2A8D0.4F962B12@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:39:23 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre wrote: > >AG: of course I should not tell English to an English native speaker, but > >is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? > > Perhaps I am mistaken...it would be far from the first time...but I was > under the impression that the word had been transliterated from the Latin > and that the plural could have been ignorami if not anglicized? While > hippopotami retains clear meaning, I do not think ignorami would to most > English speakers. Can someone educate me as to what is correct in Grattan's > absense? I do not have an OED to consult. > I didn't know the english word of "ignoramus" and have not the slightest idea of what maybe its plural, but I don't think it comes from a Latin name like dominus (plural domini) or opus (plural opera). I think "ignoramus" is a conjugated form of the verb ignorare (1st person, plural, present) and means litteraly "we don't know". who knows? Chambers, 1998 edition ignoramus, n. an ignorant person (plural ignoramuses). [Latin "ignoramus", we are ignorant; in legal use: we ignore, take no notice. 1st person plural present indicative of "ignorare"] 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 Aug 23 18:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N8tjW23534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:55:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from areca.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.156]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N8tct23530 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by areca.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 10:51:10 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.16.124) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 10:51:04 +0200 Message-ID: <001001c00cdf$d4266420$7c10fac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Mark Abraham" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:55:03 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes. And why aren't "The definitions" a Law? We can upgrade them, it's worth, they are essential in rulings. By now any definition isn't a Law, what is the status? Is Chapter I not part of Laws? How strange! All NCBO's must apply Laws (Chapter II to XI), but can they change definitions (part of the lawbook, not of laws)? IMHO not, but maybe it's unclear for someones! As we speak of definition, I have a small change to submit : Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a specified denomination. What do you think of "odd tricks"? Is 3S (9-odd tricks in S) a bid and 4S (10-even tricks in S) not a bid? No, of course, it's not odd the contrary of even, but odd the same as "any number" Isn't the definition's meaning the same if you just suppress "odd"? Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a specified denomination. Probably for you, lucky English speaking people it's nearly the same, but for all the others, it's clearer :-) At least for me! Kenavo A+OB ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Abraham To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:04 AM Subject: [BLML] Definitions > Why is a claim defined in L68A, not in the definitions? > > Why is a revoked defined in L61A, and in the definitions? > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 19:15:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N9DOt23556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:13:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7N9DHt23552 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:13:18 +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 LAA23407; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:11:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA00889; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:12:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000823112225.008db5e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:22:25 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200008221621.JAA11602@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:21 22/08/00 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >I think the TD and AC forgot to ask the most important question: Was >there misinformation? To answer this, we need to know: What was N-S's >actual agreement? > >If the actual agreement was that 4D was a splinter, no infraction was >committed, and the table result stands (4D, undoubled, down whatever). >No law says that either North or South has to bid in accordance with >their agreements, and if North somehow guesses that South has misbid, >he's allowed to bid whatever he wants, unless: > >(1) South somehow gave an indication (such as by making a face after > the alert, as a partner of mine did once) that South forgot the > system, in which case North has UI. > >(2) North suspects, from partnership experience, that 4D was really a > long suit. In this case, I'd rule that the "splinter" explanation > was misinformation, dealt with as below. AG : we felt (2) was quite possible. In the absence ofany convention card, we must do as if it were (perhaps south had forgotten before) > >To sum up, here's my ruling: >(1) If the splinter explanation is correct, no adjustment, score as 4D > undoubled; except that if North's pass was based on UI, adjust to > 4H doubled, down 5, +1100 for E/W. AG : yes. And that's why we felt being kind to N/S. Perhaps we didn't dare do it. Our mistake ! And also the mistake of those who responded there could be no adjustment. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 19:47:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N9kMx23582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:46:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N9kEt23576 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:46:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-118.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.118]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23669 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:46:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A26E72.6038B246@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:13:38 +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] Instuif Appeal 3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > They had asked me if the player could have changed his bid, > > after he had noticed that it was the right one. > > I told them he could have. Even when it was in fact > > partner's answer that told him to look once again at the > > bidding card in front of him. > > Partner's question i UI, isn't? How can a player > change his call (inadvertent or otherwise) using > the UI? > The law says "without pause for thought". We interpret this as "after one notices ones mistaken bidding card". The fact that it is partner's replay which prompts one to look at ones bidding card does not introduce any more "pause for thought". I do not believe UI rules apply in this case. Only L25A. -- 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 Aug 23 19:47:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7N9kHk23578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:46:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7N9kAt23572 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:46:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-118.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.118]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23652 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:46:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A26DFE.383BECAB@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:11:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 16:08 21/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >I don't argue with that, but I do argue with what they did > >next : they gave the money back. > >I feel that even if they discuss this for half an hour, and > >award a penalty to the opponent, that there was no merit in > >the appeal and the money ought not have been refunded. > > Well, there is something more in that appeal. The non-offending side said > that not correcting the bid was in some way detrimental to them (correcting > to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue normally). So, > although one is not compelled to correct the bid, active ethics say you > should. > We now had to determine whether the bidder was aware of that possibility. > He is a very experienced player (he had won the pairs event, after all) but > somewhat unconcerned about ethics. So we went out of the logical way and > gave him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. > > As the NOS clearly stated their appeal was not for score redress, which > they knew they weren't entitled to, but because they thought their opponent > should not escape without blame, and since this is what we said, the appeal > was in fact vindicated. > > So on which grounds should we keep the deposit ? > > A. Perhaps on the grounds that it is not the opponents' task to ask for penalties? Did they really say that they were not after a score correction ? Then they really changed their tune between me and the AC, because that was what they sought from me, and they appealed in under 10 seconds after I told them they would not get a score correction. -- 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 Aug 23 22:01:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NBxRe23668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:59:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NBxJt23664 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:59:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e7NBxE094555 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:59:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000823075454.00b08470@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:59:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <39A25208.1AB3A425@village.uunet.be> References: <4A256943.000C1AA2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:12 AM 8/22/00, Herman wrote: >The "infraction" that the AC found was the one of not >knowing that this call could have been changed without >penalty, and of not asking to do so. > >I'm not certain if this is a particularly strong >"infraction", but it can always fall under "failure to take >due notice of the game". I see nothing in TFLB that says that players are under any obligation to know the laws. And even if they were, there's nothing in L25 to require the correction. I'm with Konrad on this one. The chap made the wrong call, and instead of whining to the TD, decided to play out the resulting situation and take his medicine. He should be commended, not penalized. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 23 23:31:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NDTIu23787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:29:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f135.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NDTCt23783 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 06:29:04 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:29:04 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2000 13:29:04.0247 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B20C070:01C00D06] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke >Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:39:23 +0100 > >Jean Pierre wrote: > > > >AG: of course I should not tell English to an English native >speaker, but > > >is not 'ignoramus' originally a plural form ? > > > > Perhaps I am mistaken...it would be far from the first time...but I >was > > under the impression that the word had been transliterated from the >Latin > > and that the plural could have been ignorami if not anglicized? >While > > hippopotami retains clear meaning, I do not think ignorami would to >most > > English speakers. Can someone educate me as to what is correct in >Grattan's > > absense? I do not have an OED to consult. > > >I didn't know the english word of "ignoramus" and have not the >slightest >idea of what maybe its plural, but I don't think it comes from a Latin >name like dominus (plural domini) or opus (plural opera). I think >"ignoramus" is a conjugated form of the verb ignorare (1st person, >plural, present) and means litteraly "we don't know". who knows? > >Chambers, 1998 edition >ignoramus, n. an ignorant person (plural ignoramuses). [Latin >"ignoramus", we are ignorant; in legal use: we ignore, take no notice. >1st person plural present indicative of "ignorare"] > >David Burn >London, England The easiest way to solve the problem of not knowing the plural of a word is to say (or write) "There once was an ignoramus. With him was another ignoramus..." I recently heard one side of a telephone conversation: "We have a good English word for that situation - Schadenfreude." ________________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 24 00:16:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NEF9P23820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:15:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NEF3t23816 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:15:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4gl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.21]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14894; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002c01c00d0c$db1f3cc0$1512f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "olivier beauvillain" , "Mark Abraham" , "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:20 -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 I believe this dates back to rubber or even auction bridge, the number of "odd" tricks being those taken after winning enough tricks for the "book" (6), in other words those tricks taken that were more than half of the total possible tricks. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: olivier beauvillain To: Mark Abraham ; Liste Arbitrage Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 5:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions >Yes. >And why aren't "The definitions" a Law? We can upgrade them, it's worth, >they are essential in rulings. By now any definition isn't a Law, what is >the status? Is Chapter I not part of Laws? How strange! >All NCBO's must apply Laws (Chapter II to XI), but can they change >definitions (part of the lawbook, not of laws)? IMHO not, but maybe it's >unclear for someones! > >As we speak of definition, I have a small change to submit : >Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a >specified denomination. >What do you think of "odd tricks"? Is 3S (9-odd tricks in S) a bid and 4S >(10-even tricks in S) not a bid? >No, of course, it's not odd the contrary of even, but odd the same as "any >number" >Isn't the definition's meaning the same if you just suppress "odd"? > >Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a >specified denomination. > >Probably for you, lucky English speaking people it's nearly the same, but >for all the others, it's clearer :-) >At least for me! >Kenavo >A+OB > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mark Abraham >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:04 AM >Subject: [BLML] Definitions > > >> Why is a claim defined in L68A, not in the definitions? >> >> Why is a revoked defined in L61A, and in the definitions? >> >> 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/ > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 24 01:12:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NF6t723850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:06:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NF6it23846 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:06:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e7NF6do13779 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:06:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200008231506.e7NF6do13779@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:06:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 23, 2000 10:20:23 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > The flaw with the current method of handling slow play by imp penalties was > demonstrated in a semi-final of an American Trials in the early 80s. Team > A played 6 imps better than Team B, but Team B played 6 imps faster. A 12 > board playoff was won by Team B by one imp, and they subsequently won the > Bermuda Bowl. > > In a Bridge World editorial Edgar Kaplan noted that while pair X from Team > A had indeed been slow in the last segment, the corresponding pair Y at the > other table from Team B was also slow. However, pair Z from Team A, who > played against pair Y, were foolishly speedy. Pair Z frequently and > quickly claimed, which meant that they lost their chance at the Bermuda > Bowl because their table finished on time. Had pair Z played at normal > pace, both teams would have been fined and Team A would have won the > semi-final. Pair Z was Soloway-Goldman. Kaplan's editorial listed several cases where Soloway had the opportunity for "time" squeezes. Since he only needed to pick up two minutes to win the match, his claiming probably cost him the match. Interestingly there was also an example where Goldman had a claim and refrained from claiming for a couple of tricks. Seems as though he mis-counter his tricks. > > Best wishes > -- 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 Aug 24 01:14:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NFAVw23858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:10:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NFAPt23854 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA26608 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA18158 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008231510.LAA18158@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "olivier beauvillain" > And why aren't "The definitions" a Law? I believe they are. > Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a > specified denomination. > What do you think of "odd tricks"? Is 3S (9-odd tricks in S) a bid and 4S > (10-even tricks in S) not a bid? "Odd Trick" is also defined: "Each trick to be won by declarer's side in excess of six." In English, 'odd' has a couple of meanings apart from being the antonym of 'even'. "Strange or peculiar" will be familiar to most, but another one is "left over, outside of a group." This is the sense meant in 'odd tricks'. > Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a > specified denomination. A bid of 4S is an undertaking to win six tricks and also four more. The last four are "odd tricks," outside the group of six. This makes sense in English, but rewriting the laws to make them clearer to everyone is a good idea. What is the French expression for tricks after six? Maybe it could be translated back to English and that phrase used in the next edition. BTW, I agree with Herman about moving the statement about who becomes declarer. I looked for three or four minutes, then gave up. Indexing the law book for oneself is no doubt a valuable exercise, but it seems to me the book ought to be written so that isn't necessary. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 01:19:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NFFE023880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:15:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NFF8t23876 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:15:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA32083; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:15:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200008231515.IAA32083@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:22:25 PDT." <3.0.6.32.20000823112225.008db5e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:15:04 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:21 22/08/00 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > >I think the TD and AC forgot to ask the most important question: Was > >there misinformation? To answer this, we need to know: What was N-S's > >actual agreement? > > > >If the actual agreement was that 4D was a splinter, no infraction was > >committed, and the table result stands (4D, undoubled, down whatever). > >No law says that either North or South has to bid in accordance with > >their agreements, and if North somehow guesses that South has misbid, > >he's allowed to bid whatever he wants, unless: > > > >(1) South somehow gave an indication (such as by making a face after > > the alert, as a partner of mine did once) that South forgot the > > system, in which case North has UI. > > > >(2) North suspects, from partnership experience, that 4D was really a > > long suit. In this case, I'd rule that the "splinter" explanation > > was misinformation, dealt with as below. > > AG : we felt (2) was quite possible. In the absence ofany convention card, > we must do as if it were (perhaps south had forgotten before) > > > >To sum up, here's my ruling: > >(1) If the splinter explanation is correct, no adjustment, score as 4D > > undoubled; except that if North's pass was based on UI, adjust to > > 4H doubled, down 5, +1100 for E/W. > > AG : yes. And that's why we felt being kind to N/S. Perhaps we didn't dare > do it. Our mistake ! And also the mistake of those who responded there > could be no adjustment. Except that if you feel (2) is quite possible, then that means you treat it as a MI (and not a UI) case; but the +1100 (actually, +1400 or +1700) I referred to can be awarded only if you're treating it as an UI case!!! That's why I think the AC was confused. -- 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 Aug 24 02:06:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NG5f823908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:05:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from magnolia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NG5Xt23904 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:05:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from villosa.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.122) by magnolia.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 18:00:58 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.153.235) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 18:00:57 +0200 Message-ID: <002901c00d1b$e111eba0$eb99fac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Steve Willner" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: <200008231510.LAA18158@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:04:54 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "olivier beauvillain" > > And why aren't "The definitions" a Law? > > I believe they are. They are in the Law Book, but Law 1 in the beginning of ... chapter II, so definitions (chapter I) are before Law 1. I know it'doesn't really matter, but why not do simple when it's easy? Every body knows it's nearly the same. > > > Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a > > specified denomination. > > What do you think of "odd tricks"? Is 3S (9-odd tricks in S) a bid and 4S > > (10-even tricks in S) not a bid? > > "Odd Trick" is also defined: "Each trick to be won by declarer's side > in excess of six." > > In English, 'odd' has a couple of meanings apart from being the antonym > of 'even'. "Strange or peculiar" will be familiar to most, but another > one is "left over, outside of a group." This is the sense meant in > 'odd tricks'. Thank you. It's always time to learn. > > > Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a > > specified denomination. > > A bid of 4S is an undertaking to win six tricks and also four more. > The last four are "odd tricks," outside the group of six. > > This makes sense in English, but rewriting the laws to make them > clearer to everyone is a good idea. What is the French expression for > tricks after six? Maybe it could be translated back to English and > that phrase used in the next edition. I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" So a bid of 4S is an undertaking to win 4 "surnuméraires" tricks. Now, you have to find a translation :-) > > BTW, I agree with Herman about moving the statement about who becomes > declarer. I looked for three or four minutes, then gave up. It happens sometimes, but when directing, I can't give up! > > Indexing the law book for oneself is no doubt a valuable exercise, but > it seems to me the book ought to be written so that isn't necessary. Fully agreed. A+OB > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 24 02:09:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NG7qV23920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:07:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NG7kt23916 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:07:46 +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 MAA10001 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008231609.MAA10001@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <39A137EB.3086238@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:09:44 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 22 August 2000 at 23:49, David Stevenson wrote: >alain gottcheiner wrote: >>At 16:08 21/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>I don't argue with that, but I do argue with what they did >>>next: they gave the money back. >>>I feel that even if they discuss this for half an hour, and >>>award a penalty to the opponent, that there was no merit in >>>the appeal and the money ought not have been refunded. >> >>Well, there is something more in that appeal. The non-offending side said >>that not correcting the bid was in some way detrimental to them (correcting >>to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue normally). So, >>although one is not compelled to correct the bid, active ethics say you >>should. > Oh well, say I. I've been fixed before, and I'll be fixed again. And I'll gladly accept my "fixed to gift" ratio, thank you - with the exception of one case, and he's no longer playing bridge. I don't believe that active ethics say this - *especially* when the player involved didn't know the Law. Players aren't responsible for knowing the (fine details of the) Law - even actively ethical ones. I just can't believe that someone got penalized for not exercising a L25A *option* even though she didn't know she had that option. Depending on the time of the director call, you might penalize him for not pointing out the option, but not the player. "You passed with a 15-count because you didn't see your SA. That is perfectly legal, but we're fining you 1 IMP because you didn't bid correctly, and therefore inconvenienced your opponents." > I hope you shot the NOs for the good of the game? > Oh, would I like to. But active ethics says "no guns" :-). > Oh, by the way, active ethics are something a player does [or does not >do] not something someone else wishes on him. > I like to think I am one of the most actively ethical people around (some may disagree, especially those who believe that active ethics means not playing weird systems), and I would have passed as well. In fact, in a very similar situation, I did just that. I opened 1NT with AKQJxx xx Kxx xx. After my partner intoned "12-14", I looked down to see that my 1S opener didn't have a on it. Oh well, I thought, and sat for it. I got to play 2S, with a 10-card fit and 23 points, and 8 tricks was the limit of the hand. Win 5, and no complaints - and if it had been the more likely Lose 10, there would still have been no complaints. Why? Especially when I have a clear (to me) L25A case? Well, because convincing the TD of this might have been worse than the problem. So, if you like, I converted my mispull into a retroactive psychic. Perfectly legal, and perfectly ethical. And the appeal case is much less clear-cut than this one for the TD. With the ploriferation of defences to 1NT, how do we know that this wasn't a mispull but a system forget? The mispull is L25A, the system forget isn't (remember by UI). DWS says that "we ask the bidder, and work it out from there." And DWS probably would get it right. But I'm still sitting for this in my particular case - because I don't think DWS would get it right for me, and rightly so. Why? I play Cappelletti (Hamilton) vs. Weak NTs, but *Transfer overcalls* vs Strong NTs. So against a Strong NT, 2H shows *Spades*. (I can't remember what the NT range was in the appeal case; for this argument, assume we take it as a weak NT). So here, the chance that UI has told me I've misbid (as opposed to mispull) is high enough that I'm not sure the TD should be convinced. And the information "convicting" me (by preponderance of evidence) is right there on my CC. 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 Aug 24 02:17:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NGG7823937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:16:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NGG1t23933 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00390; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:15:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200008231615.JAA00390@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Play Sit-outs In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:06:38 PDT." <200008231506.e7NF6do13779@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:15:58 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > Interestingly there was also an example where Goldman had a claim and > refrained from claiming for a couple of tricks. Seems as though he > mis-counter his tricks. He did!?!?!? Well, that makes me feel a bit better about the eight or nine or 173 times I miscounted my tricks in Anaheim . . . -- 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 Aug 24 02:51:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NGo6I23970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:50:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NGnqt23958 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d370.iae.nl [212.61.5.116]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 369C820F35 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013501c00d22$6bfbff20$74053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> <002b01c00bcc$d7cf60e0$48afa03f@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:35:23 +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 BLML should like to know your answer? Regards, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "nancy" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? > This question was on one of my director tests!! Nancy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:14 AM > Subject: [BLML] Who's declarer ? > > > > The bidding : > > > > - 2di 2cl 2di > > 3cl - - ?? > > > > The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now > > wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > > > > The one that bid them first of course. > > > > But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > > > I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > > > It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > > > After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for > > 2005. > > > > -- > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 02:51:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NGo7723971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:50:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NGnqt23959 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d370.iae.nl [212.61.5.116]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 994C920F36 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013601c00d22$6cbc41e0$74053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20000822171505.008d8700@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:37:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Not a huge amount" is not a good reason to keep the deposit! Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif > I quote 'Since they criticized the TD in that appeal, I will not > write that up. > If a certain AG wants to write it up, I'll be happy to > provide him with the full hands.' > > Okay, Herman, since you insist that I reveal case # 2, I will oblige. > > > bd16 K32 > W/EW Q10542 > K2 > KJ8 > Q865 AJ94 > K873 A96 > 4 Q6 > 10932 AQ64 > 107 > J > AJ1098753 > 75 > > W N E S > - 1H X 4D > - - - > > North alerted 4D. West inquired. North responded : > -well, I'm not sure, either weak with a cartload of diamonds, or a fragment. > > So E/W called the Director. He asked North to make a statement as how he > would take the bid. North reluctantly answered that it probably was 'a > Fragment, to show heart agreement and a short suit'. > The director corrected : 'surely you meant a Splinter ?' > 'Yes', said North, who didn't seem to know the difference. > > Now, something very strange happened : West passed, and North PASSED TOO ! > > Now East, looking at his hand AND North's reaction, could and should have > guessed 4D was in fact natural, and should have doubled, but wouldn't he > look silly if North had had a lapse of the mind and passed his partner in a > Splinter (or a Fragment, by the way) ? > > When it became obvious to E/W that 4D was natural, they called de Director. > He duly decided this somewhat intricated case in the favor of the NOS, even > though they were not completely without blame. Yes, East should have > guessed, but not doing so is not an egregious error. He thus changed the > score to 4D doubled -2, 300 to E/W. > N/S appealed. > > The AC considered several matters, such as the degree of obviousness of the > situation, the contradiction in North's statements and actions (was it > possible that he knew 4D was a Splinter, guessed that parner went wrong, > and thus did not dare to say it too definitely ?). > > One problem we had was that North maintained he had never used the word > 'Splinter', but only agreed to a suggestion from the Director. After a > painful enquiry, the facts were established as above, and we were > thoroughly convinced that North had meant 'Splinter' all the time, so that > the director didn't in fact do anything wrong, except telling us the case > in a way slightly different of what happened. > > Now, we considered the proper action from North. Of course, if he explains > the bid as a raise of any type, he should not pass. When he bids 4H, > whatever N/S do now will cost them substantially more than 300. So we > thought that Herman had in fact been kind to N/S. > We finally decided to let -300 stand, albeit one member clearly stated it > was on the verge of undue indulgence to the OS for the reason stated above. > > Of course we kept the deposit (well, it is not a huge amount : about 12 $, > the same in €). > > Your comments will, as usual, be appreciated. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 02:51:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NGo7q23972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:50:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NGnrt23960 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:49:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d370.iae.nl [212.61.5.116]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D9A3320F39 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:49:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013701c00d22$6d8ed420$74053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> <39A25370.9F5BF526@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:46:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 12:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > > > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? > > > > In the definitions, Chapter 1. > > > > > OK, many of you have indeed found it. > > Do you really believe this is the correct place ? > > Isn't this a piece of "how the game is played", not of > definition ? > > Like : > > A small penalty card is ... not an honour. > > honour is in the definitions, correct. But small penalty > card is where it belongs, in the Laws themselves. > > When the Laws describe Hearts, Aces and claims, should they > not also describe this most elementary of practices : > declarer and dummy. > > I found it ought to have been in L22. > The final call becomes the contract, and ... becomes > declarer, and .. becomes dummy. Please add "presumed" > > >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > > > > > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > > > > Four minutes. How'd I do? :-) > > better than I ! > > -- > 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 Thu Aug 24 02:55:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NGrmh23996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:53:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NGrft23992 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:53:42 +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 MAA01660 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA18331 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:53:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008231653.MAA18331@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "olivier beauvillain" > I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" So a bid of 4S > is an undertaking to win 4 "surnuméraires" tricks. Now, you have to find a > translation :-) Thanks. 'Supernumerary' is a literal translation (I think!), but it means "more than required" and might easily be taken to mean overtricks. Not a good choice in English. 'Supplemental' might be closer but still doesn't seem right. 'Extra' maybe? Or 'bonus'? These might not be terrible, but they are not obviously better than 'odd', which has 100 years or more of tradition behind it. Maybe one solution would be to delete 'odd tricks' altogether. Define 'book' as "the first six tricks to be won by declarer's side," and 'bid' as "an undertaking to win the specified number of tricks in addition to book." But this introduces a different, unfamiliar term (book), so I'm not sure it is any help. Maybe the simplest thing is just to put a cross- reference '(q.v.)' after 'odd tricks' to remind people to look it up. Or maybe another BLML reader can offer the perfect word. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 02:57:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NGu2d24023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:56:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7NGttt24019 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:55:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4gl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.21]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08933 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <014501c00d23$59560540$1512f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:58:22 -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 Not necessarily. If he and the waitress are both single and willing...well they are consenting adults. Only if the legs were less enchanting, would he presumably even notice the mispull now. :-) Craig -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson > A player puts a 3S card down in front of him and then has a look at a >passing waitress's legs. He then happens to glance down in front of him >and finds a card saying 3NT. Are you suggesting he does nothing? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 03:50:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NHn5V24103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:49:05 +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 e7NHmvt24099 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:48:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.184] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Redj-0004n6-00; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:48:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c00d2a$6e0e6ac0$b85408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "olivier beauvillain" , "Mark Abraham" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: <001001c00cdf$d4266420$7c10fac1@cllubintplord> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:55:32 +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: Mark Abraham ; Liste Arbitrage Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions > Yes. > And why aren't "The definitions" a Law? We can upgrade them, it's worth, > they are essential in rulings. By now any definition isn't a Law, what is > the status? Is Chapter I not part of Laws? How strange! > All NCBO's must apply Laws (Chapter II to XI), but can they change > definitions (part of the lawbook, not of laws)? IMHO not, but maybe it's > unclear for someones! > +=+ The definitions are to establish the meaning of (some) words as used in the laws. There was a small move last time to reduce the number of definitions provided. Where there is no definition given the natural English dictionary meaning of a word is to be understood. ~ 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 Aug 24 03:50:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NHmtj24097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:48:55 +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 e7NHmmt24093 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.184] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13Redl-0004n6-00; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:48:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c00d2a$6f028ec0$b85408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4A256943.000C1AA2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20000823075454.00b08470@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:59:45 +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 Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 > At 06:12 AM 8/22/00, Herman wrote: > > I see nothing in TFLB that says that players are under any obligation to > know the laws. And even if they were, there's nothing in L25 to require > the correction. > +=+ I agree wholly that it is not an offence to be ignorant of the law. But, of course, an infraction of the law whilst ignorant of the law is still a violation, subject to redress and/or penalty as the laws provide. ~ 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 Aug 24 03:54:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NHr7j24121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:53:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NHr0t24117 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:53:01 +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 JAA09924 for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:52:56 -0800 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:52:56 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: 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, 22 Aug 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > The questions raised in this thread have been about inadvertent and > immediate changes of call. > > I am surprised if the following happens in the Western USA: > > A player puts a 3S card down in front of him and then has a look at a > passing waitress's legs. He then happens to glance down in front of him > and finds a card saying 3NT. Are you suggesting he does nothing? Inadvertant and *immediate* changes of call, yes, noone has a problem with that. You were asking, I thought, about inadvertant miscalls corrected "with pause but without thought." If I were to mispull and then notice ten seconds later, no, I wouldn't attempt to correct it, and would try very hard not to mutter and make faces until the end of the auction, at which time I would apologize to partner for being sloppy. Most of my opponents try to do the same (mind you, the not making faces part is frightfully hard!) If partner has already bid again, of course, this is mandatory, and admitting to a non-correctable mispull is an off-the-shelf UI nightmare. Considerable leniency tends to be allowed to the people with poor eyesight or shaky fingers - generally the director isn't even called in this case when everyone is certain it is an innocent mistake and it is noticed before anyone has bid. The very few times it has been noticed after LHO's bid but before partner's, the players in question have called me and said something like "we know it's probably too late but is there any chance she can get away with changing her call because it was so obviously an accident?" Except under these circumstances I have never been asked by a player to allow a L25A correction nor has anyone at my table asked to make one. I want "without pause for thought" changed to "without pause", period, wherever it appears in the laws. This is what most players think the law says anyway, and it makes the application much simpler. In the "LOL mispulled and LHO passed before she noticed" case I would happily waive the penalty if the opponents were so inclined, and almost all players hereabouts would be so inclined. As for looking at legs ... we don't have waitresses at any of the clubs or tournaments I have been to, and the caddies are jail bait ... I think I am missing out by not playing at the YC! 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 Thu Aug 24 04:48:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NIkTa24151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:46:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NIkMt24147 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:46:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13RfXT-0006bv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:46:15 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20000823204735.00fa8270@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:47:35 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I just see the rulings of our NCBO in the 'wedstrijdreglement'), that says if a a not intended call is withdrawn under 25 (thus 25A) the footnote says that the first player that changes his call is member of offending side and (it says implicitly) L16 will be in charge (16c2 i guess) Of course, this is national ruling (in holland). regards, anton At 09:52 AM 8/23/2000 -0800, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The questions raised in this thread have been about inadvertent and >> immediate changes of call. >> >> I am surprised if the following happens in the Western USA: >> >> A player puts a 3S card down in front of him and then has a look at a >> passing waitress's legs. He then happens to glance down in front of him >> and finds a card saying 3NT. Are you suggesting he does nothing? > >Inadvertant and *immediate* changes of call, yes, noone has a problem with >that. You were asking, I thought, about inadvertant miscalls corrected >"with pause but without thought." > >If I were to mispull and then notice ten seconds later, no, I wouldn't >attempt to correct it, and would try very hard not to mutter and make >faces until the end of the auction, at which time I would apologize to >partner for being sloppy. Most of my opponents try to do the same (mind >you, the not making faces part is frightfully hard!) If partner has >already bid again, of course, this is mandatory, and admitting to a >non-correctable mispull is an off-the-shelf UI nightmare. > >Considerable leniency tends to be allowed to the people with poor eyesight >or shaky fingers - generally the director isn't even called in this case >when everyone is certain it is an innocent mistake and it is noticed >before anyone has bid. The very few times it has been >noticed after LHO's bid but before partner's, the players in question have >called me and said something like "we know it's probably too late but is >there any chance she can get away with changing her call because it was so >obviously an accident?" Except under these circumstances I have never been >asked by a player to allow a L25A correction nor has anyone at my table >asked to make one. > >I want "without pause for thought" changed to "without pause", period, >wherever it appears in the laws. This is what most players think the law >says anyway, and it makes the application much simpler. In the "LOL >mispulled and LHO passed before she noticed" case I would happily waive >the penalty if the opponents were so inclined, and almost all players >hereabouts would be so inclined. > >As for looking at legs ... we don't have waitresses at any of the clubs or >tournaments I have been to, and the caddies are jail bait ... I think I am >missing out by not playing at the YC! > >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/ > 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 Aug 24 05:30:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NJSQn24175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 05:28:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NJSKt24171 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 05:28:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp207-189.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.189]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 34A5036BC7; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:29:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008401c00d38$a9bc6640$bdcff1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 21:30:53 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote : >>What is the French expression for tricks after six ? to which Olivier Beauvillain replied: >I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" So a bid of 4S >is an undertaking to win 4 "surnuméraires" tricks. Now, you have to find a >translation :-) My contribution will be of no help whatsoever, but I cannot refrain from pointing out that at some time there was a "French" expression for odd trick. Here is a quote from the 1937 "Code International du bridge - Règles du bridge-plafond et du contract bridge"; it is taken from the "Définitions" section, as a matter of fact :-)) "Tric : Nom que prend pour un Côté qui a déjà fait six levées, toute levée au delà de la sixième". In addition, I would like to express my approval for the way in which Steve explained the phrase "odd trick". 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 Thu Aug 24 06:06:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NK5W424198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:05:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tamaris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-12.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NK5Qt24194 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:05:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by tamaris.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 22:00:47 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.27.25) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 22:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: <004701c00d3d$56f903a0$191bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Tr: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:04:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote : > > >>What is the French expression for tricks after six ? > > to which Olivier Beauvillain replied: > >I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" So a bid of 4S > >is an undertaking to win 4 "surnuméraires" tricks. Now, you have to find a > >translation :-) > > My contribution will be of no help whatsoever, but I cannot refrain from > pointing out that at some time there was a "French" expression for odd > trick. > Here is a quote from the 1937 "Code International du bridge - Règles du > bridge-plafond et du contract bridge"; it is taken from the "Définitions" > section, as a matter of fact :-)) > "Tric : Nom que prend pour un Côté qui a déjà fait six levées, toute levée > au delà de la sixième". Probably, this side need to be declarer'side, or it's undertricks ... but it was 1937's definition. Yes, but I think the medecine is worst than the illness! If we write that a bid is an undertaking to win "tric", I think many will add a "k" ... and suppress 6 tricks! We need something simple/clear. > > In addition, I would like to express my approval for the way in which Steve > explained the phrase "odd trick". So do I And I like his definition. > > Jac > (Jac Fuchs) OK, Kenavo A+OB > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 06:21:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NKKj024215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:20:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bassia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-5.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NKKdt24211 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:20:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by bassia.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 22:16:00 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.27.25) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 23 Aug 2000 22:15:27 +0200 Message-ID: <005a01c00d3f$69d150c0$191bfac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" References: <001001c00cdf$d4266420$7c10fac1@cllubintplord> <000201c00d2a$6e0e6ac0$b85408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:19:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 ================================= > "An unalterable and unquestioned law of the > musical world required that the German text > of French operas sung by Swedish artists > should be translated into Italian for the clearer > understanding of English speaking audiences" > (Edith Wharton) > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > ----- Original Message ----- > From: olivier beauvillain > To: Mark Abraham ; Liste Arbitrage > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:55 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions > > > > Yes. > > And why aren't "The definitions" a Law? We can upgrade them, it's worth, > > they are essential in rulings. By now any definition isn't a Law, what is > > the status? Is Chapter I not part of Laws? How strange! > > All NCBO's must apply Laws (Chapter II to XI), but can they change > > definitions (part of the lawbook, not of laws)? IMHO not, but maybe it's > > unclear for someones! > > > +=+ The definitions are to establish the meaning > of (some) words as used in the laws. There was a > small move last time to reduce the number of > definitions provided. Where there is no definition > given the natural English dictionary meaning of > a word is to be understood. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hello Grattan, Do you really try to explain me that the natural meaning of "odd" is "over the first six"? If you do so, I shall agree, (because it's you), but I am not sure everybody will :-) Probably it's the natural explanation in this particuliar phrase, but not always. It's probably puzzling for all the non-english-natural-speaking : italian (Hi Maurizio), portuguese (Hi Ruy) and so on. A+OB > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 24 08:06:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NM4pc24301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:04:51 +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 e7NM4ft24293 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.235] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13RidP-0009Zj-00; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:04:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c00d4e$2eb99ba0$eb5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200008231653.MAA18331@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:21:27 +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 5.00.2615.200 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, August 23, 2000 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions > Maybe one solution would be to delete 'odd tricks' altogether. Define > 'book' as "the first six tricks to be won by declarer's side," and > 'bid' as "an undertaking to win the specified number of tricks in > addition to book." > +=+ I could suggest that Law 18A might read: "A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one to seven (after the first six), and a denomination. .......etc." Not that I think there is really any confusion in practice. But as I read Law 18F, it could allow Zonal Orgs to authorize players to bid, say, 'Nine Spades' where they now bid '3 Spades'. Now there's a thought :-)) Are there any grammarians with us? ~ 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 Aug 24 08:06:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NM4p624302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:04:51 +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 e7NM4ft24294 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.235] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13RidR-0009Zj-00; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:04:37 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c00d4e$2ff0e320$eb5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Paul Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Maastricht Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:53:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:50:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.210] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13RjLM-000AHj-00; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c00d54$8753bd80$eb5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "olivier beauvillain" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: <001001c00cdf$d4266420$7c10fac1@cllubintplord> <000201c00d2a$6e0e6ac0$b85408c3@dodona> <005a01c00d3f$69d150c0$191bfac1@cllubintplord> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:14:16 +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: Liste Arbitrage Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ================================= > > "An unalterable and unquestioned law of the > > musical world required that the German text > > of French operas sung by Swedish artists > > should be translated into Italian for the clearer > > understanding of English speaking audiences" > > (Edith Wharton) > > nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: olivier beauvillain > > To: Mark Abraham ; Liste Arbitrage > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:55 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions > > > Hello Grattan, > Do you really try to explain me that the natural meaning of "odd" is "over > the first six"? > If you do so, I shall agree, (because it's you), but I am not sure everybody > will :-) Probably it's the natural explanation in this particuliar phrase, > but not always. It's probably puzzling for all the > non-english-natural-speaking : italian (Hi Maurizio), portuguese (Hi Ruy) > and so on. > A+OB +=+ Hello Olivier, I did not think I had said that! 'Odd' has one meaning that is descriptive (and I quote) "of a surplus over a definite sum". In bridge the definite sum is six, although in recent years we seem to have omitted to say so. This appears to worry some, although the game continues to be played on this basis. ~ 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 Aug 24 09:43:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NNfUX24385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:41:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7NNfMt24381 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp233-246.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.246]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C2B336B78; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:42:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003001c00d5c$039320a0$e3cff1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:43:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote : >+=+ I could suggest that Law 18A might read: >"A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one >to seven (after the first six), and a denomination. >.......etc." Not that I think there is really any >confusion in practice. > But as I read Law 18F, it could allow Zonal >Orgs to authorize players to bid, say, 'Nine >Spades' where they now bid '3 Spades'. Now >there's a thought :-)) Are there any >grammarians with us? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I suppose this, too, is rather a dictionary matter, and not a point of grammar. I.m.h.o. the word "method" in 18F does suggest that the way in which the call is uttered may be changed by ZOs, but that this does not necessarily allows them to change the words used to imply a particular call is intended. What I mean is that i.m.o. a ZO may prescribe the use of bidding boxes, or of pen and paper or whatever to express the call, but is not allowed to prescribe that henceforth a player has to bid "green windows" where the WBF would rather have him say "two spades". I would like to add that the expression "odd trick" has never presented me with any difficulty. It's been there for ages and one might expect it to be part of the vocabulary of every English speaking bridge player. I even suppose most American speaking bridge players are likely to know it :-)) 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 Thu Aug 24 10:45:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O0hFF24425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:43:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O0h6t24420 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:43:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-21.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.21]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA23721 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:43:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A3A9D9.D6B3CF0A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:39:21 +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: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif References: <200008222336.TAA11206@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > It wouldn't be ridiculous to rule that North's pass "had to" be based on > UI, even though the actual UI wasn't detected at the table. But there > is no clear statement that this is what the AC thought. > Just to kill this line of thinking : There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that there was UI between NS. I was in full line of sight to Norths face and he remained as stoic as I know him to be. I don't know why South agreed with my statement that the Info given was "splinter" and then proceeded to pass, but certainly there was no information from his partner in this. Maybe I should have intervened straight after his pass, asking "are you sure that you want to tell opponents that it is splinter ?", but I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that he had well understood this. -- 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 Aug 24 10:45:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O0h1924415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:43:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O0gst24409 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-21.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.21]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA23712 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:42:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A3A3BE.D811AE8B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:13:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > > > > > Pls, dear BLMLers, let someone explain this to me. > >South misbid. He learned about his mistake through UI. > >He decided to accept the consequences of his mistake > >which I beleive the vast number of bridge players would > >do. Well, anyway , I'd do that. And he was penalized > >for this. > > I don't understand that. HELP!!!!! > > > > > > Konrad Ciborowski > > I agree 100% with Konrad. > Let me add that me too, I found the PP over the top. But I believe the AC are entitled to find this worthy of a PP, and I was not going to overrule them, evenif I -by the laws- could. > And furthermore I don't understand how the TD told the AC that south COULD > change his bid. Even assuming the action of changing a call is a logical > alternative to letting the original stand, he CANNOT choose this action as > it is obviously demonstrably suggested by the UI. He has to let his original > bid stand, ignore the UI,and take whatever result ensues (invariably bad for > misbids.) > Let's get this one clear for once and for all. There is no question of UI. Read L16 again : players are allowed to base calls and plays on ..., and not on UI. L16 does not say anything about the action of noticing that one has put a wrong bidding card in front of oneself. Konrad, Eitan, you are simply wrong in believing there is an UI issue here. Player can change this call, if he tries to do so immediately after noticing his mistake. But I agree that there is nothing in the laws that says that he must, or even should, do so. -- 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 Aug 24 10:45:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O0h7E24421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:43:07 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O0h0t24414 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:43:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-21.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.21]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA23716 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:42:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A3A88E.9ECE96BD@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:33:50 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif References: <00bb01c00c4e$3a906d60$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> <39A2A59C.1F235C96@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > Craig Senior a écrit : > > > > Alain, are you using tabs or something? The hands are virtually unreadable > > in this format. Otherwise thanks for an interesting case. I would have ruled > > no adjustment by the way unless I had reason to suspect North was fibbing. > > He was unsure about the agreement (or apparent lack of one), fully disclosed > > what he knew, then took a guess, with east aware that he was guessing long > > weak diamonds. Failure to double does seem egregious. There was no MI unless > > there i clear evidence that there was an agreement to play long diamonds or > > fragment or splinter. Perhaps North would have been well advised to simply > > say "we have no agreement" and let it go at that. > Which is very strange, considering that this is the oldest partnership in Belgium (they have started playing together at University and are now both retired). > But he was prompted by a director (?) to tell "how he would take the > bid". I am wondering if the OS was not the TD! I think the AC should > especially have tried to know what were NS's agreements; maybe North was > reluctant to tell all that he knew from prior partnership experience or > understanding, maybe not; and for the deposit confiscation, i remain > speechless. (the hands were in very good form for my mailer, nothing > like below). > > > His attempt to be more > > forthcoming seems to be what is being penalised here. > > Or the crime of "lack of agreement", or a reputation of bad ethics, we > were not there to appreciate... > > JP Rocafort > None of all that. I believe I had asked him to choose one explanation, and he tells us that he never understood my question that way. Oh, well ... -- 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 Aug 24 11:14:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O1CXk24474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O1CIt24457 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:19 +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 13RlYx-000P86-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:12:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:17:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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 Gordon Bower wrote: >On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Stevenson wrote: >> The questions raised in this thread have been about inadvertent and >> immediate changes of call. >> >> I am surprised if the following happens in the Western USA: >> >> A player puts a 3S card down in front of him and then has a look at a >> passing waitress's legs. He then happens to glance down in front of him >> and finds a card saying 3NT. Are you suggesting he does nothing? >Inadvertant and *immediate* changes of call, yes, noone has a problem with >that. You were asking, I thought, about inadvertant miscalls corrected >"with pause but without thought." Yes, that is right, immediate changes. Gordon, you ***cannot*** change a mistake before you have realised you have made it. Anyway, your position is clear. I suggest it is wrong in Law. Over here, people change such things routinely and legally. Many players exclaim when they realise the wrong card is down: I am very surprised you are not creating considerable problems by ignoring the part of the Law that says "for thought". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Thu Aug 24 11:14:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O1CYY24476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O1CKt24460 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:21 +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 13RlYx-000P87-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:20:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <4A256943.000C1AA2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.1.20000823075454.00b08470@127.0.0.1> <000301c00d2a$6f028ec0$b85408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000301c00d2a$6f028ec0$b85408c3@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: >+=+ I agree wholly that it is not an >offence to be ignorant of the law. But, >of course, an infraction of the law whilst >ignorant of the law is still a violation, >subject to redress and/or penalty as >the laws provide. What is the infraction in failing to correct a call under L25? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Thu Aug 24 11:14:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O1CYw24475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O1CLt24461 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:22 +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 13RlZ2-000P88-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:12:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:22:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 12:15 AM +0100 8/23/00, David Stevenson wrote: >>Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>>Whatever happened to "the Laws are primarily designed not as >>>punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage"? >> >> I don't know, but it certainly does not apply in the Laws of Bridge. > >Then why is it in TFLB? Or has another incidence of British humour >gone over my head? :-) The main reason it is in TFLB is so that people who are about to rule against the Laws have some basis for doing so. Seriously, it shows an intent. Nothing more. It has been quoted here and on RGB so many times basically in support of not following the Laws that I ..... -- 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 Thu Aug 24 11:14:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O1CfM24477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O1CJt24458 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:19 +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 13RlYu-000P89-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:12:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:26:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif References: <200008221621.JAA11602@mailhub.irvine.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 Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:21 AM -0700 8/22/00, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> You can't change North's call unless you think it was based on UI > >[snip] > >>To sum up, here's my ruling: >>(1) If the splinter explanation is correct, no adjustment, score as 4D >> undoubled; except that if North's pass was based on UI, adjust to >> 4H doubled, down 5, +1100 for E/W. >>(2) If the splinter explanation is deemed to be misinformation, adjust >> to +620 for E/W. > >I agree with your ruling, I think. But... and maybe this is a nit, or >silly, or whatever, but you can't change North's call, period. > >When you are called to judge a case where a player may have used UI, >I can find nothing in the laws that allows you to change the auction. >Law 16A2 is specific: "The Director shall require the auction and >play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he >considers that an infraction of law resulted in damage." What is >changed is the *score*, not the auction. There are situations in >which the law allows the TD to "roll back" the auction, or to require >(or allow) a player to change his call. This isn't one of them. > >Like I said, it may be a nit, but it bugs me. :-) When you assign a score, you do it by the wording of L12C2. if you read it, you will see that you are meant to decide what would have happened otherwise - and that means working out possible auctions and plays. -- 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 Thu Aug 24 12:42:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O2f5624566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7O2ext24558 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:40:59 +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 13Rmw1-000EJM-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:40:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:39:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] Your call MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The auction takes a strange course. Brighton. Teams, 3 Internationals and a punter (sitting North). Love all - Kxxx xx KQJxxxx S W N E 1C x 1D 1S 2C 2S P 3S 4C 4S P P ?? North has of course hesitated after the 4S bid. Who is walking the dog? 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 Thu Aug 24 13:21:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O3KCd24593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:20:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7O3K8t24589 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:20:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ja670185 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:20:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-240.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.240]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-All-New-MailRouter V2.9a 13/7044942); 24 Aug 2000 13:20:06 Message-ID: <00a501c00dde$5721af20$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:04:40 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >Let's get this one clear for once and for all. There is no >question of UI. > >Read L16 again : players are allowed to base calls and plays >on ..., and not on UI. > >L16 does not say anything about the action of noticing that >one has put a wrong bidding card in front of oneself. > >Konrad, Eitan, you are simply wrong in believing there is an >UI issue here. Player can change this call, if he tries to >do so immediately after noticing his mistake. How about Law 73C, Herman? If you look up UI in the index at the back of the Laws, it refers you to both Law 16 and for "UI from partner" to L73C. Did this South "carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side"? I think he did. >But I agree that there is nothing in the laws that says that >he must, or even should, do so. Not surprising, as it would contradict L73C, wouldn't it? Peter Gill (who joins Konrad and Eitan) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 13:50:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O3noq24612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:49:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O3nht24608 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7NKlH903022; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:47:17 GMT Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:47:17 GMT Message-Id: <200008232047.e7NKlH903022@psa836.la.asu.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: psa836.la.asu.edu: grabiner set sender to grabiner@math.la.asu.edu using -f From: David J Grabiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (john@probst.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst writes: > >The auction takes a strange course. > >Brighton. Teams, 3 Internationals and a punter (sitting North). > >Love all > >- >Kxxx >xx >KQJxxxx > >S W N E >1C x 1D 1S >2C 2S P 3S >4C 4S P P >?? > >North has of course hesitated after the 4S bid. > >Who is walking the dog? Unfortunately, in a UI case, you can't claim later that you were walking the dog unless it is clear that you were. You have to be able to justing the 5C bid in the context of your decision to compete to only 4C. I don't see this as a significant problem here, though; the 4S bid was not certain, and creates a new situation. Your bid of 4C did give partner a chance to double 4S. (Is West necessarily walking the dog? E don't know whether the E-W sequence is invitational or not. The hesitation suggests that North was considering an action, but which action is not clear. If partner doesn't have 4S beat in his own hand, then it will probably make whether he is considering double or 5C. However, that is AI to you from partner's failure to double 4S. Does the UI influence your decision whether 5C is a good save? Given your void, he could have considered a double with trump values, rather than general values. He could also have three small spades and be considering 5C. Thus I would allow either pass or 5C, but only because of the void. With 1-4-1-7, I would find a trump stack unlikely and disallow 5C. My choice is 5C; when in doubt, bid one more on freak hands. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu (note new address) http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, 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 Thu Aug 24 15:03:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O512q24653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:01:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7O50vt24649 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa867064 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:59:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-112.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.112]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Vintage-MailRouter V2.9b 5/201952); 24 Aug 2000 14:59:15 Message-ID: <00cd01c00dec$32b2de80$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Re: (BLML) Definitions Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:52:41 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >>>"Odd Trick" is also defined: "Each trick to be won by >>> declarer's side in excess of six." >>> >>>... makes sense in English, but rewriting the laws to make >>> them clearer to everyone is a good idea. What is the >>> French expression for tricks after six? Olivier Beauvillain wrote: >> I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" Steve Willner wrote: >Maybe one solution would be to delete 'odd tricks' altogether. >............... >Maybe the simplest thing is just to put a cross-reference >'(q.v.)' after 'odd tricks' to remind people to look it up. The French Laws are on DWS's website. By "we don't have", Olivier means that the French Laws have already done away with the term "odd tricks". Their Law 18A refers to "levees au dessus de six" i.e. 'tricks in excess of six', and their Laws 19A2, 19A3, 19B2 and 19B3 refer to "tricks" rather than "odd tricks". In this manner they have no need to mention "odd tricks" anywhere in their Laws, including the Definitions. In summary, the French Laws have already removed the term "odd tricks" in a simple intelligent manner which the English and American copies of the Laws could perhaps copy. Now for some fairly long Ancient History of the term "odd tricks" and of the Definition of "Declarer" in the Laws ... The 1932 Laws defined Odd Trick as: "Each trick won by a side in excess of six." In 1932 the (then) 'Law 42 - Other Illegal Calls' referred to "bids of eight or more odd tricks" i.e. the term 'odd tricks' was used in the Laws more widely than it is now. However 1932's Law 40 began its definition of Insufficient Bid with "If a player bids a number of tricks insufficient to ....", i.e the word 'trick' was used, French-1997 style, instead of 'odd trick', so the Laws were not consistent in their terminology. In 1932, the Definitions, which were clearly part of the Laws, defined Declarer as "The player on the contracting side who first makes a bid of the denomination named in the contract. He plays both his own cards and those of his partner." I mention this as an example that as language has evolved, terms such as 'contracting side' have disappeared from the Laws. By the 1940s, the Laws had been separated so that Duplicate Bridge had its own special set of Laws. The Definition of Odd Trick had been changed slightly to: "Each trick, in excess of six, won by a side." Note that in 1997 we have returned to the 1932 method of putting the words "in excess of six" at the end of the Definition. Herman please note: By the 1940s, the Definition of Declarer had been moved from the Definitions section to the (then): "Law 19 - THE FINAL BID AND THE DECLARER: The final bid in the auction becomes the contract. If the contract is in a suit, each card of that suit becomes a trump. The player who, for the side which made the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the contract, becomes the declarer; his partner ceases to be a player and becomes declarer's partner." The words "bid" and "denomination" were in italics in the above Laws to indicate that their definitions could be found in the Definitions. And nowadays? - The term "odd tricks" hangs around in some but not all versions of the Laws, probably unnecessarily. - The use of italics to help locate Definitions has been abandoned. - The Definition of Declarer is back in the Definitions section with improved wording. - The Definition of Insufficient Bid has gone; it is no longer in either Law 27 nor in the Definitions (perhaps Herman can find it somewhere after a 10 minute search? I couldn't). - There are about 32 people on the Drafting Committee and/or Approving Bodies at the beginning of the 1997 Laws, of which one (Grattan) is on BLML, and he is offline for the next two weeks so may never see this thread. I hope some of this is interesting, e.g the bit about italics. 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 Aug 24 15:03:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O50bF24647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:00:37 +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 (f114.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.114]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O50Vt24643 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:00:23 -0700 Received: from 172.128.162.161 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.162.161] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:00:23 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2000 05:00:23.0859 (UTC) FILETIME=[35F8E030:01C00D88] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > Anyway, your position is clear. I suggest it is wrong in Law. Over >here, people change such things routinely and legally. > > Many players exclaim when they realise the wrong card is down: I am >very surprised you are not creating considerable problems by ignoring >the part of the Law that says "for thought". My thought and experience has been that when you have had a chance to supress the reflex reaction that you continue to do so and bite the bullet. It's just a different social more. -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 Aug 24 15:33:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O5VS224677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:31:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f209.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O5VMt24673 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:31:14 -0700 Received: from 172.128.162.161 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.162.161] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:31:14 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2000 05:31:14.0691 (UTC) FILETIME=[85276D30:01C00D8C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Let's get this one clear for once and for all. There is no >question of UI. > >Read L16 again : players are allowed to base calls and plays >on ..., and not on UI. > >L16 does not say anything about the action of noticing that >one has put a wrong bidding card in front of oneself. His partner alerted and explained his bid. The alert could have brought the misbid to his attention. That is UI. Despite having a legal way to have noticed the wrong bid, there is UI. >Konrad, Eitan, you are simply wrong in believing there is an >UI issue here. Player can change this call, if he tries to >do so immediately after noticing his mistake. I'm not certain that he can do so after the alert is explained, but that's another matter. >But I agree that there is nothing in the laws that says that >he must, or even should, do so. Agreed. But I still wonder about the deposit. EW appeal, S gets a PP (which I disagree with), and you want to keep EW's deposit? Sounds like you can pay to have someone else issued a PP. Take the PP away from S and keep the deposit and then I'm right behind you. -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 Aug 24 16:04:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O62TY24705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 16:02:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7O62Ot24701 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 16:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id sa675836 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 16:02:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-61.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.61]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Gentle-MailRouter V2.9a 13/7125020); 24 Aug 2000 16:02:26 Message-ID: <011201c00df5$049e3680$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:57:15 +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 John Probst wrote: >The auction takes a strange course. > >Brighton. Teams, 3 Internationals and a punter (sitting North). > >Love all > >- >Kxxx >xx >KQJxxxx > >S W N E >1C x 1D 1S >2C 2S P 3S >4C 4S P P >?? > >North has of course hesitated after the 4S bid. > >Who is walking the dog? Not EW. Didn't East invite game with 3S, West accepting? Conventional wisdom is that North could equally well have been thinking about doubling as about bidding 5C, so both pass and 5C by South are permitted. But in a pro-sponsor partnership, it's quite possible that in an earlier post mortem the pro told the punter something like: "You're always hesitating in high level situations, if you have hesitated it's much better to make a doubtful double anyway because otherwise your hesitation puts ethical constraints on me." Then the pro would have reason to believe that partner was considering 5C, but the Director will never hear about such past experience. Or the pro may know that this particular punter will double 4S on so many hands that the hesitation was probably consideration of 5C. Because such things do happen in real life, I think it would actually be clearer to allow 5C if the punter were South! Such things cloud the issue a bit. IMO the pro doesn't really have enough to be walking the dog - his partner may have a club void (e.g. 4-3-6-0 shape, which could explain why the opponents were so slow to reach 4S). I don't know the answer on this one; I don't think it's ridiculous for an AC to disallow 5C (or 4NT). And I would most certainly allow a Pass by South. As TD I would have to consult on this one; as an AC member I would be easily swayed by the other members. Peter Gill Australia. (I assumed "punter" means 'sponsor'). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 17:37:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O7a6824742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:36:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh02nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh02nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O7a0t24738 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh02nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:35:55 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:35:50 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > This makes sense in English, but rewriting the laws to make them > clearer to everyone is a good idea. What is the French expression for > tricks after six? "Odd tricks" is an English specific expression. It's hard to translate it to other languages shortly (other than "tricks over six"). There is no such thing in Polish, French or Russian edition of the Laws - it's been kicked out of the Definitions. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 17:44:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O7h1s24759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:43:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from apicra.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.155]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7O7gtt24755 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:42:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by apicra.wanadoo.fr; 24 Aug 2000 09:38:03 +0200 Received: from cllubintplord (193.250.148.80) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 24 Aug 2000 09:37:59 +0200 Message-ID: <003e01c00d9e$bfe19600$5094fac1@cllubintplord> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Peter Gill" , "Liste Arbitrage" References: <00cd01c00dec$32b2de80$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: (BLML) Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:41:42 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote: > >>>"Odd Trick" is also defined: "Each trick to be won by > >>> declarer's side in excess of six." > >>> > >>>... makes sense in English, but rewriting the laws to make > >>> them clearer to everyone is a good idea. What is the > >>> French expression for tricks after six? > Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > >> I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" > Steve Willner wrote: > >Maybe one solution would be to delete 'odd tricks' altogether. > >............... > >Maybe the simplest thing is just to put a cross-reference > >'(q.v.)' after 'odd tricks' to remind people to look it up. > > The French Laws are on DWS's website. By "we don't have", > Olivier means that the French Laws have already done away > with the term "odd tricks". Their Law 18A refers to "levees au > dessus de six" i.e. 'tricks in excess of six', and their Laws 19A2, > 19A3, 19B2 and 19B3 refer to "tricks" rather than "odd tricks". > In this manner they have no need to mention "odd tricks" anywhere > in their Laws, including the Definitions. > > In summary, the French Laws have already removed the term > "odd tricks" in a simple intelligent manner which the English > and American copies of the Laws could perhaps copy. > > Now for some fairly long Ancient History of the term "odd tricks" > and of the Definition of "Declarer" in the Laws ... > > The 1932 Laws defined Odd Trick as: > "Each trick won by a side in excess of six." > > In 1932 the (then) 'Law 42 - Other Illegal Calls' referred to > "bids of eight or more odd tricks" i.e. the term 'odd tricks' > was used in the Laws more widely than it is now. However > 1932's Law 40 began its definition of Insufficient Bid with > "If a player bids a number of tricks insufficient to ....", i.e the > word 'trick' was used, French-1997 style, instead of 'odd trick', > so the Laws were not consistent in their terminology. > > In 1932, the Definitions, which were clearly part of the Laws, > defined Declarer as "The player on the contracting side who > first makes a bid of the denomination named in the contract. He > plays both his own cards and those of his partner." I mention this > as an example that as language has evolved, terms such as > 'contracting side' have disappeared from the Laws. > > By the 1940s, the Laws had been separated so that Duplicate > Bridge had its own special set of Laws. The Definition of Odd > Trick had been changed slightly to: "Each trick, in excess of six, > won by a side." Note that in 1997 we have returned to the 1932 > method of putting the words "in excess of six" at the end of the > Definition. > > Herman please note: > By the 1940s, the Definition of Declarer had been moved from > the Definitions section to the (then): > "Law 19 - THE FINAL BID AND THE DECLARER: > The final bid in the auction becomes the contract. If the > contract is in a suit, each card of that suit becomes a trump. > The player who, for the side which made the final bid, first bid > the denomination named in the contract, becomes the declarer; > his partner ceases to be a player and becomes declarer's partner." > > The words "bid" and "denomination" were in italics in the above > Laws to indicate that their definitions could be found in the > Definitions. > > And nowadays? > - The term "odd tricks" hangs around in some but not all versions > of the Laws, probably unnecessarily. > - The use of italics to help locate Definitions has been abandoned. > - The Definition of Declarer is back in the Definitions section with > improved wording. > - The Definition of Insufficient Bid has gone; it is no longer in > either Law 27 nor in the Definitions (perhaps Herman can > find it somewhere after a 10 minute search? I couldn't). Yes, Law 18B Describe how "To Supersede a bid", and L18D "Insufficient bid" : A bid that fails to supersede the immediately previous bid is an insufficient bid; > - There are about 32 people on the Drafting Committee and/or > Approving Bodies at the beginning of the 1997 Laws, of which > one (Grattan) is on BLML, and he is offline for the next two > weeks so may never see this thread. > > I hope some of this is interesting, e.g the bit about italics. I love this idea of italics referring to the definitions. Very easy! Sometimes définitions are in "definitions", sometimes in a Law, sometimes in several Laws (ie : insufficient bid) You can't cross-refer everything, but at last you know if you have to search in definitions or in Laws! And it doesn't hurt. > > 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 Thu Aug 24 17:51:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O7oqc24771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:50:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7O7omt24767 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:50:48 +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 RAA27217 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:46:54 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:47:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:49:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 24/08/2000 17:44:37 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst asked: "Who is walking the dog?" And Peter Gill stated: "I would most certainly allow a Pass by South." I agree that most hesitations give UI suggesting bidding rather than defending. But I am not as *certain* as Peter. Suppose that the punter sitting North always passes smoothly with support for partner (to avoid criticism for raising to hopeless games). Suppose further that this punter always agonises before making a clearcut penalty double, then chooses to pass instead (because 30 years ago the punter's double scored minus 790). So if South knows North's habits, a Pass is taking advantage of UI that 5C is a phantom save. 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 Aug 24 19:35:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7O9W6J24818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:32:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7O9Vxt24814 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:32:00 +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 LAA02896; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:32:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA03506; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:31:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000824114115.008ddbb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:41:15 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <39A26E72.6038B246@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:13 22/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >The law says "without pause for thought". >We interpret this as "after one notices ones mistaken >bidding card". > >The fact that it is partner's replay which prompts one to >look at ones bidding card does not introduce any more "pause >for thought". AG : the "appeals committee" feature in the Bridge World clarified this some years ago : there are pauses which are not made for thinking about your bid, and those don't count in such a case. Let's take a more caricatural example : there are two kinds of BBs. In the first, level are placed vertically, and denominations across. In the second, it's the opposite. So, you take out the stop card, then 1H, the third card across, believing it's 3C. Somebody exclaims 'but this isn't a skip bid'. You look at him, thinking he's crazy, then notice your bid was 1H. In my view, you are allowed to replace your bid; Plenty of time has elapsed, but not for thought about what's the right bid. To quote Herman, >I do not believe UI rules apply in this case. Only L25A. > A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 24 20:07:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OA5sJ24842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:05:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OA5mt24838 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:05:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.6.101.119] (helo=D457300) by neodymium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13RttG-00001N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:05:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c00db2$cbf450e0$7765063e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200008231653.MAA18331@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000a01c00d4e$2eb99ba0$eb5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:05:11 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > But as I read Law 18F, it could allow Zonal > Orgs to authorize players to bid, say, 'Nine > Spades' where they now bid '3 Spades'. Now > there's a thought :-)) Are there any > grammarians with us? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes. Law 18F says this: Zonal Organisations may authorise different methods of making calls. A "call" is a bid, double, redouble, or pass. And a "bid" names a number of odd tricks from one to seven, and a denomination. Thus, anything which is not "pass", "double", "redouble", or a number from one to seven followed by a denomination, is not a call. In particular, "nine spades" is not a call, and no ZO may authorise players to make it, by whatever means. It is as if Law 18F said: There is more than one way to skin a cat. Now, that would not allow players to skin dogs. 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 Fri Aug 25 00:00:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ODwJ825032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:58:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7ODwBt25028 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:58:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA24461; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001001c00dd3$af795980$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:00:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman, you demonstrate well the importance of being there. It is easy at a distance and with only part of the facts to disagree with what, on the scene and armed with more knowledge, a capable TD will rule (and correctly). If there really was an agreement, the retired gentleman is neither doddering nor an Alzheimer's victim, and if he was trying to muddy the waters with an incoreect or unclear response that it quite a different situation from the one I envisioned. If the pair really had no agreement that is one thing. If they had and one forgot, that is quite another kettle of fish. If they had, and one was deliberately disingenuous about it, the kettle had been in the sun too long. That is why there is no substitute for being there...one of the lessonswe have frequently retaught to us here on the list. My apologies for misreading the situtation Herman. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Appeal # 2 from Instuif >Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> Craig Senior a écrit : >> > >> > Alain, are you using tabs or something? The hands are virtually unreadable >> > in this format. Otherwise thanks for an interesting case. I would have ruled >> > no adjustment by the way unless I had reason to suspect North was fibbing. >> > He was unsure about the agreement (or apparent lack of one), fully disclosed >> > what he knew, then took a guess, with east aware that he was guessing long >> > weak diamonds. Failure to double does seem egregious. There was no MI unless >> > there i clear evidence that there was an agreement to play long diamonds or >> > fragment or splinter. Perhaps North would have been well advised to simply >> > say "we have no agreement" and let it go at that. >> > >Which is very strange, considering that this is the oldest >partnership in Belgium (they have started playing together >at University and are now both retired). > >> But he was prompted by a director (?) to tell "how he would take the >> bid". I am wondering if the OS was not the TD! I think the AC should >> especially have tried to know what were NS's agreements; maybe North was >> reluctant to tell all that he knew from prior partnership experience or >> understanding, maybe not; and for the deposit confiscation, i remain >> speechless. (the hands were in very good form for my mailer, nothing >> like below). >> >> > His attempt to be more >> > forthcoming seems to be what is being penalised here. >> >> Or the crime of "lack of agreement", or a reputation of bad ethics, we >> were not there to appreciate... >> >> JP Rocafort >> > >None of all that. > >I believe I had asked him to choose one explanation, and he >tells us that he never understood my question that way. > >Oh, well ... > >-- >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 Fri Aug 25 00:06:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OE5ud25048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:05:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OE5ot25044 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:05:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA17373; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001d01c00dd4$c0f84da0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Jac Fuchs" , "BLML" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We have been known to understand the odd word here and there. Perhaps because we don't have to stand around with our fingers in dikes. :-) Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Jac Fuchs >I would like to add that the expression "odd trick" has never presented me >with any difficulty. It's been there for ages and one might expect it to be >part of the vocabulary of every English speaking bridge player. I even >suppose most American speaking bridge players are likely to know it :-)) > >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 Fri Aug 25 01:42:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OFeD925094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:40:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OFe6t25088 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.55]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02297 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:39:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A4FB5D.12B79EE6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:39:25 +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] Instuif Appeal 3 References: <00a501c00dde$5721af20$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > > Herman de Wael wrote: > > > >Konrad, Eitan, you are simply wrong in believing there is an > >UI issue here. Player can change this call, if he tries to > >do so immediately after noticing his mistake. > > How about Law 73C, Herman? If you look up UI in the index > at the back of the Laws, it refers you to both Law 16 and for > "UI from partner" to L73C. Did this South "carefully avoid taking > any advantage that might accrue to his side"? I think he did. > Very clever, Peter. Surely you must see that this is a totally different concept ? Surely it cannot matter whether South heard West say "what's two hearts" or only North's reply "hearts and a minor". The answer "hearts and a minor" is not UI to south. He knows that 2He indicates hearts and a minor. So the only information that he receives from partner is that he has bid hearts. Well, as soon as he realizes this, he is entitled to an immediate reaction. Since there is no UI (no "mannerism", "explanation" or whatever - just a repeat of the call made), L73C does not IMO apply either. Is that clever enough as a riposte ? > >But I agree that there is nothing in the laws that says that > >he must, or even should, do so. > > Not surprising, as it would contradict L73C, wouldn't it? > > Peter Gill (who joins Konrad and Eitan) > Well, that's then three of you who are wrong. -- 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 Aug 25 01:42:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OFeJv25098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:40:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OFeCt25093 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:40:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.55]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02344 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:40:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A53A37.50E805F9@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:07:35 +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: [BLML] The bidding sequence of the Century Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The twentieth Century, I really mean. No explanations needed : 1Cl pass 1NT pass pass 2Sp pass pass 2Sp pass pass pass or rather one explanation needed : there were five drunks at the table. I was the one no-trump bidder who put partner in that magical contract. He must be the first person in history to have played in the contract that opponents bid. And he went only one off ! -- 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 Aug 25 02:07:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OG61j25127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:06:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OG5st25123 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:05:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13RzVl-000H6U-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:05:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:38:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A 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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> Anyway, your position is clear. I suggest it is wrong in Law. Over >>here, people change such things routinely and legally. >> >> Many players exclaim when they realise the wrong card is down: I am >>very surprised you are not creating considerable problems by ignoring >>the part of the Law that says "for thought". > > My thought and experience has been that when you have had a chance to >supress the reflex reaction that you continue to do so and bite the bullet. >It's just a different social more. Hang on - it is not a personal comment: I am not asking whether you, Todd, react, but whether other people where you play do. If people say nothing when they realise they have put down the wrong card then the use of Law 25A is irrelevant because we do not know anything is wrong! But when a player says "Erk: that is not what I meant!" we have to rule. L25A allows the call to be changed so long as the following are true: [1] The statement "Erk: ..." immediately followed realisation [2] The TD decides that the original call was not the intended one [3] Partner has not called subsequently Now, if things like this are not happening where you are because everyone sits stone-faced then fine. If they are not happening because the Law is not being applied correctly then that is worrying. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 02:33:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OGVjg25145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:31:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f201.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.201]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OGVdt25141 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:31:31 -0700 Received: from 172.128.185.207 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.185.207] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:31:31 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2000 16:31:31.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2C52E50:01C00DE8] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Surely it cannot matter whether South heard West say "what's >two hearts" or only North's reply "hearts and a minor". > >The answer "hearts and a minor" is not UI to south. He >knows that 2He indicates hearts and a minor. > >So the only information that he receives from partner is >that he has bid hearts. Well, as soon as he realizes this, >he is entitled to an immediate reaction. > >Since there is no UI (no "mannerism", "explanation" or >whatever - just a repeat of the call made), L73C does not >IMO apply either. > >Is that clever enough as a riposte ? Dunno. Wasn't it established here that when a player is reminded about partnership agreement through an alert/explanation that there's UI? That is, a misbid made on forgotten partnership agreement is UI to the player who misbid. I don't want to be the person sorting out whether south made an innocent mistake or whether he had originally forgotten the partnership agreements. Is there any other way to discern between the two situations? -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 Aug 25 03:03:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OH1Yw25178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:01:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OH1Rt25174 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:01:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d433.iae.nl [212.61.5.179]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D9A620F3C for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <016701c00ded$34030fc0$9d053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00cd01c00dec$32b2de80$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: (BLML) Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:35:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 6:52 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: (BLML) Definitions > Steve Willner wrote: > >>>"Odd Trick" is also defined: "Each trick to be won by > >>> declarer's side in excess of six." > >>> > >>>... makes sense in English, but rewriting the laws to make > >>> them clearer to everyone is a good idea. What is the > >>> French expression for tricks after six? > Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > >> I wonder we don't have! Maybe the nearest is "surnuméraire" > Steve Willner wrote: > >Maybe one solution would be to delete 'odd tricks' altogether. > >............... > >Maybe the simplest thing is just to put a cross-reference > >'(q.v.)' after 'odd tricks' to remind people to look it up. > > The French Laws are on DWS's website. By "we don't have", > Olivier means that the French Laws have already done away > with the term "odd tricks". Their Law 18A refers to "levees au > dessus de six" i.e. 'tricks in excess of six', and their Laws 19A2, > 19A3, 19B2 and 19B3 refer to "tricks" rather than "odd tricks". > In this manner they have no need to mention "odd tricks" anywhere > in their Laws, including the Definitions. > > In summary, the French Laws have already removed the term > "odd tricks" in a simple intelligent manner which the English > and American copies of the Laws could perhaps copy. The Belgium and the Netherlands Laws have just tricks as well. > Now for some fairly long Ancient History of the term "odd tricks" > and of the Definition of "Declarer" in the Laws ... > > The 1932 Laws defined Odd Trick as: > "Each trick won by a side in excess of six." > > In 1932 the (then) 'Law 42 - Other Illegal Calls' referred to > "bids of eight or more odd tricks" i.e. the term 'odd tricks' > was used in the Laws more widely than it is now. However > 1932's Law 40 began its definition of Insufficient Bid with > "If a player bids a number of tricks insufficient to ....", i.e the > word 'trick' was used, French-1997 style, instead of 'odd trick', > so the Laws were not consistent in their terminology. > > In 1932, the Definitions, which were clearly part of the Laws, > defined Declarer as "The player on the contracting side who > first makes a bid of the denomination named in the contract. He > plays both his own cards and those of his partner." I mention this > as an example that as language has evolved, terms such as > 'contracting side' have disappeared from the Laws. > > By the 1940s, the Laws had been separated so that Duplicate > Bridge had its own special set of Laws. The Definition of Odd > Trick had been changed slightly to: "Each trick, in excess of six, > won by a side." Note that in 1997 we have returned to the 1932 > method of putting the words "in excess of six" at the end of the > Definition. > > Herman please note: > By the 1940s, the Definition of Declarer had been moved from > the Definitions section to the (then): > "Law 19 - THE FINAL BID AND THE DECLARER: > The final bid in the auction becomes the contract. If the > contract is in a suit, each card of that suit becomes a trump. > The player who, for the side which made the final bid, first bid > the denomination named in the contract, becomes the declarer; > his partner ceases to be a player and becomes declarer's partner." > > The words "bid" and "denomination" were in italics in the above > Laws to indicate that their definitions could be found in the > Definitions. > > And nowadays? > - The term "odd tricks" hangs around in some but not all versions > of the Laws, probably unnecessarily. > - The use of italics to help locate Definitions has been abandoned. > - The Definition of Declarer is back in the Definitions section with > improved wording. > - The Definition of Insufficient Bid has gone; it is no longer in > either Law 27 nor in the Definitions (perhaps Herman can > find it somewhere after a 10 minute search? I couldn't). > - There are about 32 people on the Drafting Committee and/or > Approving Bodies at the beginning of the 1997 Laws, of which > one (Grattan) is on BLML, and he is offline for the next two > weeks so may never see this thread. > > I hope some of this is interesting, e.g the bit about italics. > > 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 Fri Aug 25 05:34:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWpO25302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWIt25262 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:19 +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 13S2jV-0006O1-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:14:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions References: <002c01c00d0c$db1f3cc0$1512f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002c01c00d0c$db1f3cc0$1512f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: [snip] >>> -- >>> ======================================================================== >>> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ Since these footers have been around for some time now, Markus, I think it is fair to say I find them a pain in the butt, especially since you have not solved the problem of the sig separator, so software does not strip them off. How about a monthly article giving details of BLML? Yes, I know we objected to your RGB one, but that was very inaccurate towards the end, and very long. Half a page monthly? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 05:35:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWs925303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWQt25282 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13S2jc-0006Nx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:17:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions References: <200008231653.MAA18331@cfa183.harvard.edu> <000a01c00d4e$2eb99ba0$eb5608c3@dodona> <001101c00db2$cbf450e0$7765063e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001101c00db2$cbf450e0$7765063e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001101c00db2$cbf450e0$7765063e@D457300>, David Burn writes >It is as if Law 18F said: > >There is more than one way to skin a cat. SSSSNNNNNAAAARRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!!!!!!!!! >Now, that would not allow players to skin dogs. Why not? Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures 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 Aug 25 05:35:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWx925305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:33:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWRt25284 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13S2jc-0006O0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:30:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Provoked Revoke 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 Mark Abraham wrote: >Late in a teams match against a pair well-known for their inability to >know, remember, explain and disclose their unusual system as well as >their absence of bridge judgement & knowledge about the rules, the >following end position arose... > > x > xxx > x > x >- - >xxx xx >- Kx >xxx xxx > x > A > AQxx > - > >With the lead in hand in a spade contract, declarer faces his hand and >starts "OK, I'm going to play...." West interjects with "No, play it out" >and East concurs with "Yes, I'm going to get my king of diamonds". >Declarer asserts that play ceases after a claim and facing his hand is a >claim despite the interruption to his statement of his line. West, >harried, asserts that he hates it when people claim because they're >always wrong and he can't understand them. > >Declarer takes up his hand and leads the AH, discarding dummy's diamond. >He then ruffs a diamond on the table and a heart back to hand. The AD is >then cashed followed by the high diamonds. > >"Oh" says East, "I didn't get my diamond... sorry partner, I thought we >might have gotten a club trick too". > >West ignores partner and stares at declarer... "YOU didn't follow suit to >your AH". > >"Oh" says declarer, "so I didn't. What do we do now?" > >"Hmm, maybe we'd better call the Director" muses West. > >You arrive to the table as TD. How do you rule? First problem is that you have not given much clue about the level and experience of the East-West pair. If it is reasonably high, then I issue them a PP of 3 imps or 0.5 VP: if not then I merely give them a strong warning. I explain that if ever they harry anyone again when they claim that I shall fine them 6 imps or more. I then warn South that he must never play on after a claim. Then I restore the six cards above and invite South to make his claim statement to me [brushing off the interminable interruptions]. Then I rule on that. Revoke? There wasn't one during the play of the hand. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 05:35:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWnM25300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWIt25261 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:19 +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 13S2jU-0006Nz-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:51:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? References: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>Tony Musgrove from Australia wrote (original post at end): >>>...........Result 2H +3 >>But how on Earth could they make 11 tricks ? > ----------- >Cultural differences, Alain. In Australia, '+3' means >"making nine tricks", not *making three overtricks*. That just means that Australia has American culture. :)))) >Alain, you do realise that Australia is "on Earth"? :) If you are going to associate with North America .... :)))) ----------- Peter Gill wrote: >Surely we should take into account that NS played 2H and >made 9 tricks, so if we adjust the score to 4H then NS >should still make 9 tricks. Not necessarily. At different levels either side might play differently. ----------- Peter Gill wrote: >In Australia, awarding split scores is rare. Is it quite >a common practice overseas? It is rare in Europe. I believe it is commonest at top-level in North America, and probably close to unheard of in clubs everywhere. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 05:35:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWmf25298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWIt25259 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:19 +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 13S2jV-0006O0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:01:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? References: <006401c00c3f$976622a0$9be036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >In "Duplicate Directions", the ACBL's guide for club TDs, it says >something to the effect that one of the best things a new TD can do >is to index TFLB. IOW, to sit down, go through the book, and write >one's *own* index. Seemed like a good suggestion, to me. Someday, >I'll get a rountuit. :-) _________ / \ / \ | | | Tuit | \ / \ ________ / There you are. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 25 05:35:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWwc25304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OJWRt25283 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13S2jc-0006Ny-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:24:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions References: <001001c00cdf$d4266420$7c10fac1@cllubintplord> In-Reply-To: <001001c00cdf$d4266420$7c10fac1@cllubintplord> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk olivier beauvillain wrote: >As we speak of definition, I have a small change to submit : >Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a >specified denomination. >What do you think of "odd tricks"? Is 3S (9-odd tricks in S) a bid and 4S >(10-even tricks in S) not a bid? >No, of course, it's not odd the contrary of even, but odd the same as "any >number" >Isn't the definition's meaning the same if you just suppress "odd"? > >Bid : An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a >specified denomination. > >Probably for you, lucky English speaking people it's nearly the same, but >for all the others, it's clearer :-) >At least for me! The problem is basically historical. Nowadays the term "odd tricks" is unheard of [nearly] but a lot of laws have been around a long time. The term odd trick means a trick over six ["the book"?]. Wen I was young people used the term a lot. Now it is anachronistic and should disappear from the Laws. ---------- olivier beauvillain wrote: >Do you really try to explain me that the natural meaning of "odd" is "over >the first six"? >If you do so, I shall agree, (because it's you), but I am not sure everybody >will :-) Probably it's the natural explanation in this particuliar phrase, >but not always. It's probably puzzling for all the >non-english-natural-speaking : italian (Hi Maurizio), portuguese (Hi Ruy) >and so on. You forgot everyone who is under 50. It is not a natural meaning at all: it is an old-fashioned meaning. ------- Mark Abraham wrote: >Why is a claim defined in L68A, not in the definitions? > >Why is a revoked defined in L61A, and in the definitions? Same reason, I suspect. No-one sat down and wrote the Laws from scratch. Since the Laws have got to where they are by re-writing, consistency is often missing. Should this be corrected? Yes. Should we be blaming the law-makers? No, I think you should be more sympathetic to their problems: there are a lot of problems in correcting the Laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 05:35:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWnB25301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWIt25258 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:19 +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 13S2jU-0006Ny-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:42:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen References: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <009801c00746$b98ffb60$bbe136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: >I have heard that the "solid suit 3D opener" has already been >approved by the President of the WBF Systems Committee, >so logic and commonsense have justly prevailed over application >of regulations. That is one way of looking at it, and a very sad approach. I would have thought it understood that regulations are applied with commonsense. -- 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 Fri Aug 25 05:35:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJWm125299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWIt25260 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:19 +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 13S2jU-0006Nx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:38:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen References: <200008151452.KAA07275@cfa183.harvard.edu> <011f01c007c4$7ae53500$666860cb@laptop> In-Reply-To: <011f01c007c4$7ae53500$666860cb@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >Bridge hands are not a continuum strengthwise so IMO it is flawed to even >attempt to draw a line in the sand - 'weak' one side and 'not weak' the >other. I think this is what is wrong with the whole argument. If you are trying to work out the perfect evaluation system then Wayne is right: perfection is a brain [human or computer] that inputs all available information and comes to a conclusion - and the presence of a 9 rather than a 7 may be a determining factor. For regulation of permitted methods you cannot attain this perfection and should accept this. So you produce some regulation, trying to make it simple so that everyone understands it. When you do there will always be borderline problems whatever your definition is. *BUT* the fact that there will be borderline problems does *not* make such a regulation wrong. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 05:35:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OJX0325306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:33:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OJWSt25285 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 05:32:29 +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 13S2jc-0006Nz-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:32:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:25:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? References: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <39A13930.6F17D5B9@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: >The bidding : > >- 2di 2cl 2di >3cl - - ?? > >The insufficient bid has been accepted but the player now >wants to know who shall play a possible diamond contract. > >The one that bid them first of course. > >But where does it say that in the Laws ? > >I urge you all to RTFLB and try and find it. > >It took me a long time (twice 10 minutes) but I did find it. > >After that exercise it should go into Grattan's notebook for >2005. I suppose I am bragging but it took me 15 seconds because I looked in the wrong place first. Really, Herman, it is where I would expect it to be so why should it go in Grattan's notebook? ---------- John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <39A13930.6F17D5B9@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >>But where does it say that in the Laws ? >Chapter 1, definitions. First place I looked. :)) > >But I did know Law 41 refers to presumed declarer, so the definition of >declarer is where to go. True. The reason I took so long was I looked at L41 first. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 06:05:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OK4H025376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 06:04:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OK4Bt25372 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 06:04:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp233-249.worldonline.nl [195.241.233.249]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 51FF036B61; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 22:03:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006f01c00e06$d6dd64c0$f9e9f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 22:06:42 +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 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 am well aware that my contributions to this thread - but only those to this thread, I hope :-)) - are of no relevance to people interested in current and future laws only, so I invite them to SKIP this mail. Yesterday, prompted by Steve Willner, I quoted a 1937 French definition of "tric", which apparently was the French word for "odd trick" at the time : >Here is a quote from the 1937 "Code International du bridge - Règles du >bridge-plafond et du contract bridge"; it is taken from the "Définitions" >section, as a matter of fact :-)) >"Tric : Nom que prend pour un Côté qui a déjà fait six levées, toute levée >au delà de la sixième". Somehow, I always get excited when issues concerning the history of the game are raised (So thank you Peter, for your mail in this thread). I therefore checked some more books, and the very same definition was already in the 1927 "Législation du Bridge aux enchères et du Bridge-Plafond" by Bellanger, and, slightly differently worded, in the 1913 precursor of it ("Législation du bridge aux Enchères" by the same author) where the word is written as "trick" - with a "k". You may also like to know that Deschapelles used the very same word way back in 1840 in his "Traité du Whiste" : "Art. 52. Quand on a fait six levées (le devoir), chaque levée en sus se nomme tric et se marque un point.". At whist, of course, there were no declarer and defenders as such and no undertricks, as merely a trump suit was determined, and not a contract. So either pair could score odd tricks on each hand, and the pair which won odd tricks on a hand would score them. 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 Fri Aug 25 07:17:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OLFe225445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 07:15:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OLFXt25441 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 07:15:34 +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 RAA16252 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA26950 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:15:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008242115.RAA26950@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Brown stickers seen Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > For regulation of permitted methods you cannot attain this perfection > and should accept this. So you produce some regulation, trying to make > it simple so that everyone understands it. When you do there will > always be borderline problems whatever your definition is. > > *BUT* the fact that there will be borderline problems does *not* make > such a regulation wrong. Exactly so, but as well as being simple, a regulation should also produce a reasonable correlation between strength _as defined_ and strength _as perceived_ by players. Mandating a point count that assigns four points to a jack and one point to an ace would not be a good regulation! High card points alone aren't too bad for balanced hands, but they have poor correlation with strength for hands with long suits. Fixing this requires a more complex evaluation scheme, alas, and reasonable people can surely differ on the amount of complexity it is desirable to add. My personal preference is still Peter's suggestion: HCP plus one point for each card over four in any suit. I think this is simple enough for most players to cope with :-) while still recognizing that long suits increase a hand's strength. But if regulators choose a different method, I don't think we can say it is illegal. We can, however, advocate a change. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 07:34:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OLWcM25466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 07:32:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OLWVt25462 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 07:32:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h83.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.83]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7OLWMN29354 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:32:23 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39A5937B.ADFD0B85@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:28:29 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Konrad.wrote: > "Odd tricks" is an English specific expression. It's hard to translate > it to other languages shortly (other than "tricks over six"). > There is no such thing in Polish, French or Russian edition of the Laws - > it's been kicked out of the Definitions. But there is expression in Russian edition. Back-translation onto English is equal to: Decleared Trick Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 08:29:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7OMP9U25507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 08:25:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7OMP3t25503 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 08:25:03 +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 RL5NN5MR; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:25:00 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <006601c00c46$dfb1f640$4f11f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:27:54 -0500 To: "Craig Senior" , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's declarer ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The Pilgrim fathers left to escape religious persecution. The Californians >migrated in search of gold. With each 3000 mile move the language mutated an >equivalent amount. (Lop!) 1. The migrants from over the water produced linguistically conservative descendants. ("Flapjack" is glossed the Sisson (English) version of the complete works of WS. (See Pericles: act 2, scene 1.) Totally unnecessary to explain it as "pancake" here in the US.) They changed more than we did. 2. "Valley Speak" was discovered by the kids in the "Valley" about 25 years after my compeers and I talked that way in the late 40's-early 50's out east of LA around Ontario, Pomona, San Bernardino, Riverside. Of course, we didn't talk that way around adults. Much of what is often described as "Californian" sounds like the common speech of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, and such places. Those are the places the parents and grandparents of many of the present southern Californians came from. (What used to be regarded as the "nuttiness" around S. Calif. is really the concentrated nuttiness of the midwest. Here, it gets spread out over twenty times the area, so it is diluted. Probably a thousand people have seen the Watts towers for every one who has seen the Garden of Eden in Lucas, Kansas. If you're headed that way, stop off to see the Davis Memorial in the cemetery in Hiawatha. I omit Missouri nuttiness in respect for my adopted state.) REH 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 Fri Aug 25 10:53:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P0m8d25571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:48:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com [139.134.5.197]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7P0m4t25567 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:48:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ka627650 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:48:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-218-103.tmns.net.au ([203.54.218.103]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Mixed-Up-MailRouter V2.9b 11/610014); 25 Aug 2000 10:48:18 Message-ID: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:30:34 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: >>"Odd tricks" is an English specific expression. >But there is expression in Russian edition. >Back-translation onto English is equal to: >Decleared Trick Do you mean "declared trick"? Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 10:56:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P0oqc25577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:50:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7P0oht25573 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:50:44 +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 13S7he-000LAZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:50:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:44:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Your call 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 , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >John Probst asked: > >"Who is walking the dog?" > >And Peter Gill stated: > >"I would most certainly allow a Pass by South." > >I agree that most hesitations give UI suggesting bidding rather than >defending. But I am not as *certain* as Peter. The punter had not played with this pro before (or seldom) so far as I know. cheers john > >Suppose that the punter sitting North always passes smoothly with support >for partner (to avoid criticism for raising to hopeless games). Suppose >further that this punter always agonises before making a clearcut penalty >double, then chooses to pass instead (because 30 years ago the punter's >double scored minus 790). > >So if South knows North's habits, a Pass is taking advantage of UI that 5C >is a phantom save. > >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/ -- 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 Fri Aug 25 11:30:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P1PI525606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:25:18 +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 e7P1PCt25602 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:25:13 +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 13S8Ez-000LCU-0A; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:25:11 +0000 Message-ID: <2hdjoVAuZap5EwQm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:49:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: David Stevenson From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I expect to have a bit of spare time in Maastricht, especially since my doctor has made some very stroppy noises about drinking, and I am sure that over the last six months or so I have promised to give you an opinion on some subjects. The trouble is I have been so busy these have been pushed to the background. so, can anyone tell me anything I have promised but not done? Psyches? Ok, I made some peripheral comments on psyches, but never got involved in the main argument, so I should talk about that. The "double" when the player removed his cards and was assumed to have passed. Fine, I remember that. Two cards played simultaneously: is the one not chosen minor? Recently there was a hand with a sequence 2NT 3H 3NT or some such: I never gave the final story. So, what else? Please let me know on the hotmail address. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Brighton 11/8 - 20/8 Maastricht 24/8 - 10/9 Isle of Man 14/9-18/9 Copy emails to may reach me especially in Maastricht Bridgepage: 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 Fri Aug 25 13:08:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P34cU25657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:04:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7P34Yt25653 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:04:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ya996292 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:04:47 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-63.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.63]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Big-MailRouter V2.9b 9/496582); 25 Aug 2000 13:04:47 Message-ID: <011d01c00ea5$553986c0$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Two ACBL Board Decisions Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:55:08 +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 Two ACBL Board decisions in August may be of interest to the BLML. The first one has been discussed on BLML: 1. "The ACBL Laws Commission is requested to recommend a change to Law 40 E 2 and further to interpret the Law to permit zonal organizations to designate levels of competition and events in which a participant may refer to his or her own convention card." Carried 18-7. 2. The WBF request for a membership dues increase from 10 cents/member to $1.00/member effective January 1, 2002, failed by a 15-10 vote. A compromise motion raising dues by 40 cents (from 10 to 50 cents) per member (excluding junior members) was then approved by a 14-11 vote. Seems to me (PG) that if other countries do the same as the ACBL, then in 2002 the WBF might have enough money to employ a bridge-playing wordsmith (from England?) to examine the FLB and recommend changes. Is this a silly idea? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 25 13:56:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P3qQb25686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:52:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com [139.134.5.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7P3qMt25682 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:52:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga998094 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:51:06 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-194.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.194]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Specific-MailRouter V2.9b 9/511056); 25 Aug 2000 13:51:05 Message-ID: <016e01c00eab$cd061be0$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:46:49 +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 Herman de Wael wrote: >Surely it cannot matter whether South heard West say >"what's two hearts" or only North's reply "hearts and a minor". Not a very well phrased way for West to ask about the alerted bid :-)), but I do understand your point. >The answer "hearts and a minor" is not UI to south. He >knows that 2He indicates hearts and a minor. > >So the only information that he receives from partner is >that he has bid hearts. Well, as soon as he realizes this, >he is entitled to an immediate reaction. > >Since there is no UI (no "mannerism", "explanation" or >whatever - just a repeat of the call made), L73C does not >IMO apply either. > >Is that clever enough as a riposte ? Yes. Sometimes I don't read all the BLML posts very closely and I joined in this thread without fully understanding the issues. Coming from a country where Bidding Boxes are rare, I have been struggling to understand this "inadvertent bid-changing". Thanks Herman, it's beginning to make more sense now. OK, so there is a strong case that South can change his call. Also, now I understand what that one imp fine was about .... Alain Gottcheiner (of the AC) had written: >>Well, there is something more in that appeal. The >>non-offending side said that not correcting the bid >>was in some way detrimental to them (correcting >>to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue >>normally). So, although one is not compelled to correct >>the bid, active ethics say you should. >>We now had to determine whether the bidder was aware >>of that possibility. He is a very experienced player (he had >>won the pairs event, after all) but somewhat unconcerned >>about ethics. So we went out of the logical way and gave >>him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. Cute. On the actual hand, no correction after 1NT (2H) 3NT meant that NS cashed five clubs against 3NT, whereas after a correction to 2S, EW are likely to reach their 4-4 heart fit probably via a 3S cue bid. So, once West bid 3NT, South had a fair idea that he had gained by not correcting. I like AG's description "out of the logical way". Alain G - but when should South have corrected 2H to 2S? Either? - as soon as he found out, i.e. when North replied, i.e before West bid 3NT? If so, South didn't yet know that he might gain by not correcting? Or? - as soon as West bid 3NT, in which case South has had "pause for thought". I like the good intentions of the AC but there seems to be a timing problem in the logic of the fine. I suppose this fits with your words "out of the logical way" i.e. the small token fine was just a reminder to South, not a matter of logic? I wouldn't have given such a fine because it could backfire; if the logic behind it isn't quite right, then it may make South more antagonistic towards authority rather than the intended outcome of South becoming more aware of his responsibilities. Now for a couple of side-tracks: As an example of the recent BLML theme in several threads of "looking in the wrong part of the FLB", if South changes 2H to 2S: - if you look at L25A there is "no penalty", but - if you were to look at Law 26 to see if there is a Lead Penalty (not so silly since Law 26 is called 'Call Withdrawn, Lead Penalties'), you see: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn .... ". It would be easy for an inexperienced Director to read those words and misunderstand and think that a Lead Penalty applies. l wonder if it would be better to add "except for a Law 25A correction" somewhere in Law 26, possibly as a footnote? Yes I know that L26 says "offending" and the inadvertent call-changer probably isn't "offending" (that's another word that I can't find defined anywhere in the Laws). Also, a question of procedure from a country that is new to Bidding Boxes. When changing an inadvertent call under L25A, should a player simply change the call, or call the Director then change the inadvertent call? In the case of Instuif Appeal 3, the latter seems best to me. 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 Fri Aug 25 16:09:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P63k125748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:03:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7P63dt25744 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru ([194.190.217.45]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7P63WN26297 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:03:32 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39A60B39.5E7B7F82@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:59:23 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Peter Gill wrote: > Vitold wrote: > >>"Odd tricks" is an English specific expression. > >But there is expression in Russian edition. > >Back-translation onto English is equal to: > >Decleared Trick > > Do you mean "declared trick"? > > Peter Gill. For sure - thx Peter. And sorry - am not English-speaking:) Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 16:37:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P6XS525766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:33:28 +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 e7P6XNt25762 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:33:23 +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 QAA10676 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:29:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:29:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Two ACBL Board Decisions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:32:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 25/08/2000 16:27:12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: "Two ACBL Board decisions in August may be of interest to the BLML. The first one has been discussed on BLML: 1. "The ACBL Laws Commission is requested to recommend a change to Law 40 E 2 and further to interpret the Law to permit zonal organizations to designate levels of competition and events in which a participant may refer to his or her own convention card." Carried 18-7." [snip] In the earlier discussion, it was suggested that the ACBL's desire could be achieved by a cunning interpretation of footnote 24 to L40E2. That is, for a certain class of player, *all* opposing systems would be deemed unusual, allowing those players to refer to written defensive notes which *just happen* to be their own system cards. Another cunning interpretation of footnote 24 occurred in the Butler Pairs at a recent Australian National Championship. A pair was permitted to play its Forcing Pass system, with opponents allowed written defences. Some ingenious players decided that their written defence would be another Forcing Pass system! This meant that for that match, two opposing pairs were playing a Forcing Pass system, but only one of them was entitled to read their own system notes at the table. 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 Aug 25 17:23:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P7JWd25808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:19:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7P7JRt25804 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:19:27 +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 RAA15188 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:15:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:16:02 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3 (Intl)) with SMTP id 2000082517131642:66626 ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:13:16 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A256946.00282396 ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:18:25 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:18:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Passing out Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 25/08/2000 17:13:16, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 25/08/2000 17:13:16, Serialize complete at 25/08/2000 17:13:16 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. North decides to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a lead-directing opening bid of 1H with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and out). North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to make lead-directing openings. Question 1: Therefore, is North breaching L40D by opening with a king below average strength? Question 2: Alternatively, do North-South have a CPU in breach of L40B? Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au *************************** Important Warning! *************************** This electronic communication (including any attached files) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is only intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have permission to read, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or retain any part of this communication or its attachments in any form. If this e-mail was sent to you by mistake, please take the time to notify the sender so that they can identify the problem and avoid any more mistakes in sending e-mail to you. The unauthorised use of information contained in this communication or its attachments may result in legal action against any person who uses 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 Fri Aug 25 18:42:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P8cGu25848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:38:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from izomr2.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@izomr2.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7P8c3t25844 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Mizra-10-47.access.net.il [213.8.10.47]) by izomr2.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AAL39451; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:36:41 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <39A6309A.78328E04@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:38:50 +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 - August 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 Today is the Day .....Happy birthday LIST & KUSHI. Here is the 23th 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(RB 2/2000) (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 - an 11 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 19:27:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P9Qjp25886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:26:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7P9Qdt25882 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:26:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:26:35 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Definitions Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:17:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: EXT Vitold [mailto:vitold@elnet.msk.ru] > Sent: 25. August 2000 0:28 > Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Definitions > > > Hi all:) > > Konrad.wrote: > > > "Odd tricks" is an English specific expression. It's > hard to translate > > it to other languages shortly (other than "tricks over six"). > > There is no such thing in Polish, French or Russian edition > of the Laws - > > it's been kicked out of the Definitions. > > But there is expression in Russian edition. Back-translation > onto English is > equal to: > Decleared Trick > Vitold > Of course, it is: "liszniaja wziatka" ("leshnaya vziatka"?) ... I read _carefully_ the Definitions _twice_ and I failed to find it. Once your post arrived I checked once more and found it immediately. Sorry, Vitold; we all have moments when our brains dry out. Though my partners maintain... well, never mind :)) Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 20:01:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7P9xj925904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7P9xct25900 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:59:39 +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 LAA21006; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:58:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA29952; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:59:16 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000825120850.008e1910@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:08:50 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this hesitation convey? In-Reply-To: References: <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <00be01c007f4$03181b20$72d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:51 24/08/00 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > >>In Australia, awarding split scores is rare. Is it quite >>a common practice overseas? > > It is rare in Europe. I believe it is commonest at top-level in North >America, and probably close to unheard of in clubs everywhere. > AG : my feeling is that it is much too uncommon, and the main reason is that the Directors and AC don't dare to say the NOS the erred. I do feel we should have more split scores, and more weighted scores (awarding some percentage of the contract being made, the conplement to it going down). Surely it would make our ruling even more difficult to explain, but I've seen so much cases where it would be the best way to restore equity - and aren't we supposed to aim at that target before any pther ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 20:09:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PA9HS25920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 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 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 e7PA9At25916 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:09:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA07210 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:09:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:09 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out 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: <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. > North decides to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a > lead-directing opening bid of 1H with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and > out). > > North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to > make lead-directing openings. > > Question 1: Therefore, is North breaching L40D by opening with a > king below average strength? The hand passed originally. Calling a players second action an opening bid is surely a misnomer. > Question 2: Alternatively, do North-South have a CPU in breach of > L40B? Why concealed? This may be alertable under your regs (it probably isn't directly addressed) but it sounds to me like a natural bridge-logic meaning that opponents would reasonably be expected to understand/deduce. I would probably alert in this situation but wouldn't consider treating it at as CPU (very serious offence IMO) if someone didn't. Opponents can always ask (it's a sufficiently unusual situation that I think most would)- I'd expect a full explanation to be given. 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 Fri Aug 25 20:14:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PAETL25937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PAENt25933 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:14:24 +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 MAA25065; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:12:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA07998; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:14:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000825122334.008e46f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:23:34 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Two ACBL Board Decisions 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 16:32 25/08/00 +1000, you wrote: >Another cunning interpretation of footnote 24 occurred in the Butler Pairs >at a recent Australian National Championship. A pair was permitted to play >its Forcing Pass system, with opponents allowed written defences. > >Some ingenious players decided that their written defence would be another >Forcing Pass system! This meant that for that match, two opposing pairs >were playing a Forcing Pass system, but only one of them was entitled to >read their own system notes at the table. AG : I've been in that situation before. We were playing some kind of Fert system, and the opponents countered by "against their 'medium' pass, pass is 12+, 1C is 0-6 ..." But in Belgium, when this happens, the original Fert pair are allowed to use a "defence vs defence ve Fert" and look at it when necessary. So equity would be restored. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 25 21:12:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PBA9525986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:10:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rmx460-mta.mail.com (rmx460-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7PBA2t25981 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:10:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from web617-ec.mail.com (web617-ec.mail.com [165.251.32.96]) by rmx460-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA07390 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 07:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <385373728.967201797188.JavaMail.root@web617-ec.mail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 07:09:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] global account Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 194.7.15.89 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have created a new e-mail address, see above, and sub-scr-- it to blml. That way, everyone can read blml messages from wherever in the world. Notably useful, I hope, from tomorrow in Maastricht. You need to know the password, of course, but I think you can guess what that is. Herman ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.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 Aug 25 23:30:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PDT4g26123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:29:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PDSvt26119 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:28:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d017.iae.nl [212.61.3.17]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7598820F50 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:28:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00aa01c00e98$b018b140$2d033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <016e01c00eab$cd061be0$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:29:57 +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 Law 26 is applied when a call is withdrawn AND the partner knows something about the hand he is not entitled to. But in this case 2H only indicates values and a minor. That is specified again with a bid of 2S. So there should not be a lead penalty. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 > Herman de Wael wrote: > >Surely it cannot matter whether South heard West say > >"what's two hearts" or only North's reply "hearts and a minor". > > Not a very well phrased way for West to ask about the alerted > bid :-)), but I do understand your point. > > >The answer "hearts and a minor" is not UI to south. He > >knows that 2He indicates hearts and a minor. > > > >So the only information that he receives from partner is > >that he has bid hearts. Well, as soon as he realizes this, > >he is entitled to an immediate reaction. > > > >Since there is no UI (no "mannerism", "explanation" or > >whatever - just a repeat of the call made), L73C does not > >IMO apply either. > > > >Is that clever enough as a riposte ? > > Yes. Sometimes I don't read all the BLML posts very closely > and I joined in this thread without fully understanding the issues. > Coming from a country where Bidding Boxes are rare, I have > been struggling to understand this "inadvertent bid-changing". > Thanks Herman, it's beginning to make more sense now. > > OK, so there is a strong case that South can change his call. > > Also, now I understand what that one imp fine was about .... > > Alain Gottcheiner (of the AC) had written: > >>Well, there is something more in that appeal. The > >>non-offending side said that not correcting the bid > >>was in some way detrimental to them (correcting > >>to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue > >>normally). So, although one is not compelled to correct > >>the bid, active ethics say you should. > >>We now had to determine whether the bidder was aware > >>of that possibility. He is a very experienced player (he had > >>won the pairs event, after all) but somewhat unconcerned > >>about ethics. So we went out of the logical way and gave > >>him a penalty of ONE FULL IMP to recall him his duties. > > Cute. On the actual hand, no correction after 1NT (2H) 3NT > meant that NS cashed five clubs against 3NT, whereas after > a correction to 2S, EW are likely to reach their 4-4 heart fit > probably via a 3S cue bid. So, once West bid 3NT, South > had a fair idea that he had gained by not correcting. > I like AG's description "out of the logical way". > > Alain G - but when should South have corrected 2H to 2S? > Either? > - as soon as he found out, i.e. when North replied, i.e before > West bid 3NT? If so, South didn't yet know that he might gain > by not correcting? > Or? > - as soon as West bid 3NT, in which case South has had > "pause for thought". > > I like the good intentions of the AC but there seems to be > a timing problem in the logic of the fine. I suppose this fits > with your words "out of the logical way" i.e. the small token > fine was just a reminder to South, not a matter of logic? > I wouldn't have given such a fine because it could backfire; > if the logic behind it isn't quite right, then it may make South > more antagonistic towards authority rather than the intended > outcome of South becoming more aware of his responsibilities. > > Now for a couple of side-tracks: > > As an example of the recent BLML theme in several > threads of "looking in the wrong part of the FLB", if > South changes 2H to 2S: > - if you look at L25A there is "no penalty", but > - if you were to look at Law 26 to see if there is a > Lead Penalty (not so silly since Law 26 is called > 'Call Withdrawn, Lead Penalties'), you see: > > "When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he > chooses a different final call for that turn .... ". > > It would be easy for an inexperienced Director to read > those words and misunderstand and think that a Lead > Penalty applies. l wonder if it would be better to add > "except for a Law 25A correction" somewhere in Law 26, > possibly as a footnote? > > Yes I know that L26 says "offending" and the inadvertent > call-changer probably isn't "offending" (that's another word > that I can't find defined anywhere in the Laws). > > Also, a question of procedure from a country that is new to > Bidding Boxes. When changing an inadvertent call under > L25A, should a player simply change the call, or call the > Director then change the inadvertent call? In the case of > Instuif Appeal 3, the latter seems best to me. > > 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 Aug 26 01:18:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PFG8N26171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:16:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PFG1t26167 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28399 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008251518.LAA28399@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:18:04 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 25 August 2000 at 11:09, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >In-Reply-To: <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. >> North decides to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a >> lead-directing opening bid of 1H with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and >> out). >> >> North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to >> make lead-directing openings. >> >> Question 2: Alternatively, do North-South have a CPU in breach of >> L40B? > >Why concealed? This may be alertable under your regs (it probably >isn't directly addressed) but it sounds to me like a natural >bridge-logic meaning that opponents would reasonably be expected to >understand/deduce. I would probably alert in this situation but >wouldn't consider treating it at as CPU (very serious offence IMO) if >someone didn't. Opponents can always ask (it's a sufficiently unusual >situation that I think most would)- I'd expect a full explanation to >be given. And here (ACBL) that would get you into real trouble, C or not. OTOH, this "implicit agreement" - I assume that N-S haven't explicitly agreed on it, from the nature of the explanation - is illegal in the ACBL, so alerting it would just make use of this "unapproved convention" obvious. >From http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm : ------ Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. ------ While I'm not sure I agree with this - and I'm not sure it's possible to avoid, given that "implicit agreements" migrate to "systems", as we've discussed to death - it certainly is logical. I wonder if something like this is around elsewhere? 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 Sat Aug 26 01:25:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PFP0C26185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:25:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7PFOst26181 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:24:55 +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 LAA11915 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA03722 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:24:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:24:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008251524.LAA03722@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] global account X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I have created a new e-mail address, see above, and sub-scr-- it to blml. If all you want to do is _read_ the messages, look at the last line of this message (the line added automatically by majord*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 Aug 26 04:23:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PILHo26316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:21:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PILAt26312 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:21:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive404.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.4]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06089; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000801c00ec1$989a4d20$0410f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:23:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Any understanding other than that derived from bridge logic might be forbidden...but let us examine this bid. What does everybody at the table know of the heart "overcaller"? He did not feel he had sufficient strength to open initially...or to bid a weak two...or a premptive bid in hearts. He has a heart suit. He knows that if either opponent could open the bidding it is East, and if that player buys the contract his partner will be on lead. So he is saying I have hearts, they are not exceptionally long, but I can stand (or desire) you to lead them against any contract east ends up in. How can such a bid possibly be unlawful? How can there be a concealed partnership understanding here when the opponents know as much as partner does about the meaning of the bid? As for an alert, while this may not be covered in the regs, this certainly seems to be at least as "self-alerting" as a cue bid and logically should not require an alert unless the opponents are rank novices. Of course if there is some agrrement that this bid cannot show 10 points as easily as five, then we have a different situation, and may indeed have an illegal convention. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, August 25, 2000 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out >On 25 August 2000 at 11:09, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >>In-Reply-To: <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> (RH)>>> As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. >>> North decides to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a >>> lead-directing opening bid of 1H with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and >>> out). >>> >>> North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to >>> make lead-directing openings. >>> >>> Question 2: Alternatively, do North-South have a CPU in breach of >>> L40B? >> (TWM)>>Why concealed? This may be alertable under your regs (it probably >>isn't directly addressed) but it sounds to me like a natural >>bridge-logic meaning that opponents would reasonably be expected to >>understand/deduce. I would probably alert in this situation but >>wouldn't consider treating it at as CPU (very serious offence IMO) if >>someone didn't. Opponents can always ask (it's a sufficiently unusual >>situation that I think most would)- I'd expect a full explanation to >>be given. > (MF)>And here (ACBL) that would get you into real trouble, C or not. OTOH, >this "implicit agreement" - I assume that N-S haven't explicitly agreed >on it, from the nature of the explanation - is illegal in the ACBL, so >alerting it would just make use of this "unapproved convention" obvious. > >From http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm : > >------ (ACBL)>Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > >Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's >infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of >the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's >call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is >conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage >of a call out of rotation has been approved. >------ > >(MF)While I'm not sure I agree with this - and I'm not sure it's possible to >avoid, given that "implicit agreements" migrate to "systems", as we've >discussed to death - it certainly is logical. I wonder if something >like this is around elsewhere? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 06:21:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PKK8f26378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:20:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PKK2t26374 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:20:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05511 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008252022.QAA05511@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000801c00ec1$989a4d20$0410f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <000801c00ec1$989a4d20$0410f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:22:05 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 25 August 2000 at 14:23, "Craig Senior" wrote: >Any understanding other than that derived from bridge logic might be >forbidden...but let us examine this bid. What does everybody at the table >know of the heart "overcaller"? He did not feel he had sufficient strength >to open initially...or to bid a weak two...or a premptive bid in hearts. Fine to here. >He has a heart suit. I did not read that from the opening post - it was "lead-directing". If it did guarantee a suit, fine. But many of my lead-directing calls do not promise the suit (Goldman raises over doubles of weak 2's for instance, or "one-under" doubles of splinters), just that I want the suit led. Everything else you say makes sense, but the only way we know that he has a heart suit is that we were shown the hand. Michael. P.S. I have been told that the quote I made from the website "may have been repealed - I'll check" (paraphrase). Thanks, Steve, for pointing that out, and for double-checking. mdf -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 06:42:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PKej826393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:40:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7PKect26389 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 06:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4e1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.193]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12490; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:40:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000601c00ed5$13f7be40$c111f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:43:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother (CS)>>He has a heart suit. > (MF)>I did not read that from the opening post - it was "lead-directing". If it >did guarantee a suit, fine. But many of my lead-directing calls do not >promise the suit (Goldman raises over doubles of weak 2's for instance, >or "one-under" doubles of splinters), just that I want the suit led. > >Everything else you say makes sense, but the only way we know that he >has a heart suit is that we were shown the hand. The bridge logic would say that it shows a suit in the absence of an alert. Surely the examples you mention are sufficiently unusual to require one. Therefore if the bid is non-alertable, it shows a heart suit. If it is alertable, it may or may not represent a prohibited convention, but most likely would be regulable under 40D. But the plain vanilla bid of a heart in this setting seems to be legit. The question, I suspect is whether is is regulable as an "opening" bid more than a king less than average. I concur with those who point out that is is the player's SECOND call, so therefore would not be bound by that. 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 Sat Aug 26 08:01:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PLxid26443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 07:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PLxct26438 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 07:59:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug5d.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.173]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA11815 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101c00edf$b70f4120$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00a501c00dde$5721af20$7fd636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <39A4FB5D.12B79EE6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:59:16 -0400 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: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 6:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 > Peter Gill wrote: > > > > Herman de Wael wrote: > > > > > >Konrad, Eitan, you are simply wrong in believing there is an > > >UI issue here. Player can change this call, if he tries to > > >do so immediately after noticing his mistake. > > > > How about Law 73C, Herman? If you look up UI in the index > > at the back of the Laws, it refers you to both Law 16 and for > > "UI from partner" to L73C. Did this South "carefully avoid taking > > any advantage that might accrue to his side"? I think he did. > > > > Very clever, Peter. > > Surely you must see that this is a totally different concept > ? > > Surely it cannot matter whether South heard West say "what's > two hearts" or only North's reply "hearts and a minor". > L73C applies only to information (including questions and explanations) by partner, not the opponents. The question by W is AI. The answer by N is UI. There are many situations in which this can indeed matter. > The answer "hearts and a minor" is not UI to south. He > knows that 2He indicates hearts and a minor. > S has never forgotten system? Of course the explanation by N is UI to S, unless 73C has been repealed. > So the only information that he receives from partner is > that he has bid hearts. Well, as soon as he realizes this, > he is entitled to an immediate reaction. > > Since there is no UI (no "mannerism", "explanation" or > whatever - just a repeat of the call made), L73C does not > IMO apply either. > 2H is a repeat of the call made. Hearts and a minor is an explanation. Saying an apple is a pear does not make it true. The question is not whether or not the explanation by N is UI. It is. The question is whether or not the UI is relevant to the ruling. > Is that clever enough as a riposte ? > > > >But I agree that there is nothing in the laws that says that > > >he must, or even should, do so. > > > > Not surprising, as it would contradict L73C, wouldn't it? > > > > Peter Gill (who joins Konrad and Eitan) > > > > Well, that's then three of you who are wrong. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > Actually, I agree with you on this one, as IMO correcting an inadvertent call is not a bridge action in the sense that a call or play is. If the S call qualifies for a 25A correction, the call or play made at the S turn was the original -intended- call. When the player corrects a wrong bidding card pulled, the player is not basing a bridge action on UI, simply correcting a mechanical error. L16 only applies to calls or plays and is clearly immaterial if the actual call (the intended one) had been made prior to the UI (as must be the case if 25A is deemed to apply). L73C is more problematical, as correcting a mechanical error could be construed as an action advantageous to the player's side. My interpretation is the "advantage" referred to in 73C is intended to apply to bridge actions (calls or plays), not mechanical corrections (although I am ready to stand corrected by those wiser than I). Since we are not talking about a bridge action when we are making a 25A correction, the source of the information that awakens the player does not matter. It could be UI or AI, as long as the conditions of 25A are met. Again, a player making a 25A correction is not basing a bridge action on UI, simply correcting a mechanical error. If we're truly dealing with a mispull, the actual call was decided prior to the presence of the UI, and so cannot be based on the UI. It's up the the TD on the spot to determine if 25A applies. If it does, IMO we simply correct the error and move on. Regards, Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 08:20:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PMJHB26471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:19:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7PMJBt26467 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:19:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e7PMJ6860986 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:19:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000825174224.00b05ea0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:19:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out In-Reply-To: <200008251518.LAA28399@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM 8/25/00, blml wrote: >And here (ACBL) that would get you into real trouble, C or not. OTOH, >this "implicit agreement" - I assume that N-S haven't explicitly agreed >on it, from the nature of the explanation - is illegal in the ACBL, so >alerting it would just make use of this "unapproved convention" obvious. > > >From http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm : > >------ >Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > >Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's >infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of >the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's >call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is >conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage >of a call out of rotation has been approved. >------ > >While I'm not sure I agree with this - and I'm not sure it's possible to >avoid, given that "implicit agreements" migrate to "systems", as we've >discussed to death - it certainly is logical. I wonder if something >like this is around elsewhere? The ACBL regulation is absurd; it is nothing less than a classic catch-22. (Apologies in advance to those who have heard this story before.) Some years back, a friend of mine and I were sitting in my den discussing bidding theory. We wondered -- hypothetically -- what we, using only our knowledge of bidding theory and logic, would expect partner to have if the auction went 2S-2H-? and he (a) accepted and bid 2S, (b) accepted and bid 3S, or (c) refused to accept, then bid 3S over the anticipated correction to 3H. We didn't invent any conventions or anything; we decided that, based strictly on bridge logic, (a) should show willingness to compete but no game interest, (c) should invite game, and (b) should be strong, game-forcing, with possible slam interest (we never did get around to discussing 2S-2H-4S vs. 2S-2H/3H-4S). Some months later, we were playing together at a tournament when the situation arose, and my partner chose one of the above alternatives (I don't recall which one). Since we had indeed had the earlier discussion, I decided that this could consitute "special information conveyed [by] partnership experience", so I alerted. The opponents inquired, and I briefly recounted the theoretical discussion we had had in my den. The TD was called, and ruled we had a partnership understanding about actions over an opponent's irregularity, which was illegal; our score would be adjusted to the worse of our actual result or A- (opponents receiving the reciprocal score). We appealed. I argued before the AC that we had had our discussion, there was no way we could "un-have" it, that my only possible choices were to either reveal it to our opponents or keep it concealed, and that it therefore seemed that it must be both legally and ethically appropriate to be forthcoming rather than keep what I knew to myself. After some deliberation, we were called back. The committee told me that they would let me "get away with it" this time since my motives were pure (we were allowed to keep our good score, while the opponents were allowed to keep their A+ -- fodder for another thread, perhaps), but that I was "never to do it again". I then asked them what, exactly, was it that I was never supposed to do again? Discuss bidding theory in the privacy of my own home? Play with a partner with whom the subject of the meaning of actions over opponents' irregularities had ever come up in discussion? Tell my opponents about such a discussion when it had previously occurred? The chairman's answer was that the committee had rendered its judgment in full, and I should shut up and go home. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 09:15:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7PNCq826502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:12:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7PNCjt26498 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:12:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22707; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:12:39 -0700 Message-Id: <200008252312.QAA22707@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Aug 2000 18:19:18 PDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20000825174224.00b05ea0@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:12:41 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > After some deliberation, we were called back. The committee told me that > they would let me "get away with it" this time since my motives were pure > (we were allowed to keep our good score, while the opponents were allowed > to keep their A+ -- fodder for another thread, perhaps), but that I was > "never to do it again". I then asked them what, exactly, was it that I was > never supposed to do again? Discuss bidding theory in the privacy of my > own home? Play with a partner with whom the subject of the meaning of > actions over opponents' irregularities had ever come up in > discussion? Tell my opponents about such a discussion when it had > previously occurred? > > The chairman's answer was that the committee had rendered its judgment in > full, and I should shut up and go home. Maybe you were never supposed to accept an opponent's insufficient bid (or COOT) again? It might be worthwhile to ask someone in charge (Gary Blaiss?) what you should do in this situation. I.e., now that you've chatted with a partner about this situation, if it comes up again while playing with this partner, you need to know what your responsibilities and rights are, since the committee didn't feel like telling you. I kind of doubt that Mr. Blaiss would respond that you should shut up and go home (although it's conceivable that he wouldn't respond at all). -- 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 Aug 26 10:01:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7Q00JK26526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:00:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7Q00Dt26522 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 10:00:14 +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 RAA23483; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:00:08 -0700 Message-Id: <200008260000.RAA23483@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:18:20 PDT." <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:00:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. > North decides to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a > lead-directing opening bid of 1H with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and > out). > > North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to make > lead-directing openings. On reflection, this seems like a supremely dumb idea. If N-S are thinking about the best way to get a good score on defense, it seems much, much better not to accept West's POOT, thus barring West from the auction (L30B2(a)). I mean, if you're expecting to defend, isn't it better to silence one of the opponents and let the other opponent guess where to play it, than to let the opponents bid normally and get to their best spot, even with a free lead-director? If you're going to have agreements over the opponents' calls out of turn, it seems much better to give them some offensive (rather than defensive) purpose, so that you gain in the cases where barring the opponents wouldn't make a difference because the opponents were just going to pass anyway. -- 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 Aug 26 13:03:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7Q30ws26597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:00:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7Q30pt26593 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:00:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.24.42.155] (d18182a9b.rochester.rr.com [24.24.42.155]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06320; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20000825174224.00b05ea0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20000825174224.00b05ea0@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:51:10 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:19 PM -0400 8/25/00, Eric Landau wrote: >The chairman's answer was that the committee had rendered its >judgment in full, and I should shut up and go home. "A committee is an organism with six or more legs--and no brains." - -R.A. Heinlein, _Time Enough For Love_. I don't think I've ever seen a better example of the truth of Mr. Heinlein's statement. :-) 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: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOacy2r2UW3au93vOEQKVjwCfb4w7xfE981e4Jj4zJhreduYJTCwAnR2C M3pobhKVpmqi6lqK1BM9y5Fd =q0KR -----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 Aug 26 20:17:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7QAF1f26783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:15:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7QAEqt26775 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.58]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11239 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:14:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A65D62.849733D7@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:49:54 +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: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... References: <2hdjoVAuZap5EwQm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I expect to have a bit of spare time in Maastricht, especially since That means I'll do all the Appeals work then ? > my doctor has made some very stroppy noises about drinking, and I am and all the drinking ? -- 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 Aug 26 20:17:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7QAEx226782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7QAEpt26770 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:14:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.58]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11231 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:14:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A65B58.66FC8E02@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:41:12 +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] Instuif Appeal 3 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: > > >From: Herman De Wael > >Surely it cannot matter whether South heard West say "what's > >two hearts" or only North's reply "hearts and a minor". > > > >The answer "hearts and a minor" is not UI to south. He > >knows that 2He indicates hearts and a minor. > > > >So the only information that he receives from partner is > >that he has bid hearts. Well, as soon as he realizes this, > >he is entitled to an immediate reaction. > > > >Since there is no UI (no "mannerism", "explanation" or > >whatever - just a repeat of the call made), L73C does not > >IMO apply either. > > > >Is that clever enough as a riposte ? > > Dunno. Wasn't it established here that when a player is reminded about > partnership agreement through an alert/explanation that there's UI? That > is, a misbid made on forgotten partnership agreement is UI to the player who > misbid. I don't want to be the person sorting out whether south made an > innocent mistake or whether he had originally forgotten the partnership > agreements. Is there any other way to discern between the two situations? > Yes, the ruling. We have ruled (and this is subject to discussion, of course, but we are talking principles here) that this player was not mistaken in his system. He knew that the cards he held were best described with a 2Sp bid, and that is what he (thought he had) bid. We ruled that he also knew what 2He meant, in his system, and so the only information that his partner transmitted to him was the fact that he bid 2He, not that this meant He+mi. So you may not be the one who wants to sort out between the two, but there were 6 people who agreed on the events as set out above (me, the AC and the opponents). And the cards supported it as well (he did have clubs). I don't believe there is an UI issue here. -- 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 Aug 26 21:04:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7QB35J26833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:03:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7QB2wt26829 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:02:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA28236 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:02:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:02 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out 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: <200008251518.LAA28399@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> michael Farebrother wrote: > > > >Why concealed? This may be alertable under your regs (it probably > >isn't directly addressed) but it sounds to me like a natural > >bridge-logic meaning that opponents would reasonably be expected > to >understand/deduce. I would probably alert in this situation > but >wouldn't consider treating it at as CPU (very serious offence > IMO) if >someone didn't. Opponents can always ask (it's a > sufficiently unusual >situation that I think most would)- I'd > expect a full explanation to >be given. > > And here (ACBL) that would get you into real trouble, C or not. > OTOH, this "implicit agreement" - I assume that N-S haven't > explicitly agreed on it, from the nature of the explanation - is > illegal in the ACBL, so alerting it would just make use of this > "unapproved convention" obvious. > > From http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm : > > ------ > Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of > the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is > conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage > of a call out of rotation has been approved. > ------ As far as I am aware 1H showing heart length, heart values, and a desire for a heart lead is about as natural as one can get. Not being an opening bid by any normal definition it is not subject to SO regulation. > > While I'm not sure I agree with this - and I'm not sure it's > possible to avoid, given that "implicit agreements" migrate to > "systems", as we've discussed to death - it certainly is logical. With 250 readers we already have 30,000+ pairs with this "implicit agreement" - difficult to put back in the box. Actually I have no problem with the ACBL limiting conventions in this fashion (though I don't see why they should wish to). Trying to regulate natural interpretations is just silly. Implicit understandings will arise from time to time at the table (or in the bar). Most of these will be driven by bridge logic and then the NOS is prevented from applying that logic at the table. It seems like fun to think about these things (Ok I'm warped) but in the auction 1S-P-2C-1H what is: An immediate 1S An immediate 2S 2S over a correction to 2H 2H over a substituted pass Perhaps respectively poor 6 card suit good 6cs min hand 6 cards, extra values heart control (HA/K) or heart stopper? All natural WTP. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 21:10:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7QB9Yl26845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:09:34 +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 [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7QB9Rt26841 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.45]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07977 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <39A79D47.518182AC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:34:47 +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: [BLML] Passing out References: <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. North decides > to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a lead-directing opening bid of 1H > with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and out). > This happened to me yesterday !!!! I held xx KQxxx xx xxxx in first seat and decided that it was not enough to open a dutch two with. So I passed Then my RHO also passed. I accepted, opened 2He, and partner alerted. When asked what it was, he answered "Muiderberg, but obviously not strong enough for a real one. I'm guessing 5 points." He bid 4He and I made it. My partner does not read blml. -- 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 Aug 27 02:28:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7QGQV326991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:26:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from izomr2.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@izomr2.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7QGQKt26987 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:26:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-211.access.net.il [213.8.4.211] (may be forged)) by izomr2.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AAM03831; Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:25:54 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <39A7F019.2DF5C802@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:28:09 +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: [BLML] Passing out References: <4A256946.002822B6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <39A79D47.518182AC@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We will open a special department for Herman's Heart fantasies...... Enjoy at the 12345th Olympics at Maaaaaaaastricht. Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. North decides > > to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a lead-directing opening bid of 1H > > with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and out). > > > > This happened to me yesterday !!!! > > I held xx KQxxx xx xxxx in first seat and decided that it > was not enough to open a dutch two with. So I passed > > Then my RHO also passed. > > I accepted, opened 2He, and partner alerted. > When asked what it was, he answered "Muiderberg, but > obviously not strong enough for a real one. I'm guessing 5 > points." > > He bid 4He and I made it. > > My partner does not read blml. > > -- > 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 Sun Aug 27 08:27:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7QMOqa27211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:24:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7QMOlt27207 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:24:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([203.96.107.20]) by mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with SMTP id <20000826222450.SKGV209966.mta5-rme.xtra.co.nz@oemcomputer> for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:24:50 +1200 Message-ID: <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> From: "Bruce.Small" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] What takes precidence Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:27:07 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C01011.59AD6C40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C01011.59AD6C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All Had a fun local tournament yesterday where I managed to mess the = movement up in one section and put myself an hour behind after having to = restart (and redeal) a whole session. Anyway during the day had a number = of interesting calls most of which were relatively straight forward.=20 Called to one table where a director was playing. Bidding (written) had = gone 2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen from paper but immediately put it = back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth player (the = director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the = inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had been = no delay in the correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and = forcing, ie neither bid is conventional. Your thoughts Regards Bruce ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C01011.59AD6C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All
 
Had a fun local tournament yesterday = where I=20 managed to mess the movement up in one section and put myself an hour = behind=20 after having to restart (and redeal) a whole session. Anyway during the = day had=20 a number of interesting calls most of which were relatively straight = forward.=20
 
Called to one table where a director = was playing.=20 Bidding (written) had gone
2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen = from paper but=20 immediately put it back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth = player=20 (the director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the=20 inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had been = no delay=20 in the correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and forcing, = ie=20 neither bid is conventional.
 
Your thoughts
 
Regards
 
Bruce
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C01011.59AD6C40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 27 15:20:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7R5IMH27379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:18:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7R5IFt27375 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-38lcl8l.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.85.21]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA01615 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <014a01c00fe6$2389c4e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:17:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0147_01C00FC4.9BF97F00" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0147_01C00FC4.9BF97F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Was the original 2H inadvertent? Was the player always intending to bid = 3H, but made a mistake writing it down? If so, and there was no pause = for thought, then the call is 3H. Note that even if there was no pause = for thought, if the player originally intended to call 2H, that call may = not be changed under 25A (for example, the player started to write 2H, = noticed the 2N call and immediately changed to 3H)=20 If 2H was not inadvertent or if there was "pause for thought" then 25B = rather than 25A applies. In the case of illegal calls, 25B refers the = ruling to the applicable Law, in this case L27. So, the TD must make a judgement of whether or not 25A applies. Note = that the immediate change of call does not always mean that the first = call was inadvertent, and the TD will have to do some investigation. = However, once the TD rules that the 2H call was inadvertent and = corrected without pause for thought, 3H is the call. Since 3H is = sufficient, there is no need to invoke L27. Regards, Hirsch Davis Rockville, MD USA ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bruce.Small=20 To: bridge-laws=20 Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 6:27 PM Subject: [BLML] What takes precidence Hi All Had a fun local tournament yesterday where I managed to mess the = movement up in one section and put myself an hour behind after having to = restart (and redeal) a whole session. Anyway during the day had a number = of interesting calls most of which were relatively straight forward.=20 Called to one table where a director was playing. Bidding (written) = had gone 2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen from paper but immediately put it = back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth player (the = director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the = inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had been = no delay in the correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and = forcing, ie neither bid is conventional. Your thoughts Regards Bruce ------=_NextPart_000_0147_01C00FC4.9BF97F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Was the original 2H inadvertent?  = Was the=20 player always intending to bid 3H, but made a mistake writing it = down?  If=20 so, and there was no pause for thought, then the call is 3H.  Note = that=20 even if there was no pause for thought, if the player originally = intended to=20 call 2H, that call may not be changed under 25A (for example, the player = started=20 to write 2H, noticed the 2N call and immediately changed to 3H) =
 
If 2H was not inadvertent or if there = was "pause=20 for thought" then 25B rather than 25A applies. In the case of illegal = calls, 25B=20 refers the ruling to the applicable Law, in this case L27.
 
So, the TD must make a judgement of = whether or not=20 25A applies.  Note that the immediate change of call does not always mean that the first = call was=20 inadvertent, and the TD will have to do some investigation.  = However, once=20 the TD rules that the 2H call was inadvertent and corrected without = pause for=20 thought, 3H is the call.  Since 3H is sufficient, there is no need = to=20 invoke L27.
 
Regards,
 
Hirsch Davis
Rockville, MD USA
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Bruce.Small
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 = 6:27=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] What takes=20 precidence

Hi All
 
Had a fun local tournament yesterday = where I=20 managed to mess the movement up in one section and put myself an hour = behind=20 after having to restart (and redeal) a whole session. Anyway during = the day=20 had a number of interesting calls most of which were relatively = straight=20 forward.
 
Called to one table where a director = was playing.=20 Bidding (written) had gone
2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen = from paper=20 but immediately put it back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by = fourth=20 player (the director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid = or the=20 inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had = been no=20 delay in the correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and = forcing,=20 ie neither bid is conventional.
 
Your thoughts
 
Regards
 
Bruce
------=_NextPart_000_0147_01C00FC4.9BF97F00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 27 18:04:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7R82Ia27443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:02:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7R82Bt27439 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:02:12 +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 AAA13759 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:02:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:02:06 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out In-Reply-To: <200008260000.RAA23483@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: > > North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to make > > lead-directing openings. > On reflection, this seems like a supremely dumb idea. If N-S are > thinking about the best way to get a good score on defense, it seems > much, much better not to accept West's POOT, thus barring West from > the auction (L30B2(a)). I mean, if you're expecting to defend, isn't > it better to silence one of the opponents and let the other opponent > guess where to play it, than to let the opponents bid normally and get > to their best spot, even with a free lead-director? If you like a swingy "all tops and bottoms, and hopefully more tops and bottoms" game, yes, do it your way. Making a free lead director and then letting the opponents reach their normal contract, on the other hand, will get you an average result often, a top occasionally (when the lead matters and wouldn't have been found otherwise) and a bottom only very rarely. I think both courses of action have similar expectations, but yours has a much higher variance. For decent players in the ubiquitous stratified pairs, "avoid the bottoms and the tops will take care of themselves" is a great way to pile up 60% sessions and make the overalls often (though it doesn't get you all that many clear wins.) I think it is not a "supremely dumb idea", but rather a clearly indicated course of action for any pair that believes itself to be better than the average strength of the field. --- I have yet to personally come into conflict with the ACBL regulation against agreements after irregularities. I do think the ACBL needs a reminder that is has the authority to regulate conventions only, and that "an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention" (except for strong passes). My partner and I have had a few discussions about what to do after insufficient bids, though not over BOOTS, and have taken care to make sure our calls are all natural if we accept the insufficient bid. As for whether or not to alert them ... that is a tough question. And if I open out of turn and my LHO accepts and doubles for takeout, I *will* call the director and claim an illegal convention is being used, will get laughed at and denied an adjustment, and will appeal it for the sole purpose of getting the silly regulation some noisy publicity. I can afford getting an appeal-without-merit point on my record for a good cause like this :) 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 Sun Aug 27 18:14:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7R8DSG27461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:13:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f34.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7R8DMt27457 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:13:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:13:14 -0700 Received: from 212.198.0.95 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [212.198.0.95] From: "Eitan Levy" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:13:14 IDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2000 08:13:14.0369 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5C5D710:01C00FFE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The order of precedence is: 1. Determine if the call was inadvertent. 2a. If YES, 3H is the bid, continue normally. 2b. If NO, apply Law 27 (note that 3H can never be accepted or condoned, see footnote to L25B1, and 25B2a refers to applicable law, in this case L27) In the case you refer to there would probably be no difference between the two in practical terms. As 2H/3H is not conventional, the only difference is that in the case of an inadvertent 2H the bid is automatically corrected to 3H, whereas if the change was not inadvertent LHO may accept the bid of 2H. Eitan Levy >From: "Bruce.Small" > >Called to one table where a director was playing. Bidding (written) had >gone >2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen from paper but immediately put it back >done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth player (the director). So >which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the inadvertant bid. Three >out of four of the players agreed there had been no delay in the >correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and forcing, ie neither >bid is conventional. > >Your thoughts > >Regards > >Bruce ________________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Aug 27 23:27:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7RDP4T27561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:25:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7RDOvt27557 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:24:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d366.iae.nl [212.61.5.112]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 858C320F50 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:24:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004701c0102a$6ff6f3e0$92033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] What takes precidence Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:25:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0103B.117B9300" 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_0040_01C0103B.117B9300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In Belgium and the Netherlands we have Bidding Box rules. Written = bidding is only been done with screens. To answer your question I should like to know your W-bidding rules. Besides that maybe the hand is interesting for the answer. At school we were not allowed to scrib. In Australia . . . .=20 My experience as player as well is that this happens from time to time. = It is not a slip but an unconcentrated bid. 1NT occurs more frequently = than 2NT. The player knows what to do but he forgets that it was 2NT. = That means that Law 27 should be applied, but . . . Only the table director can decide what happened. As you described it I = think the player was just in time thinking that the bid was 2NT. The = fourth player was scribbing and that is not courtious.=20 I think the TD has to read the W-bidding rules. Ben ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bruce.Small=20 To: bridge-laws=20 Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 12:27 AM Subject: [BLML] What takes precidence Hi All Had a fun local tournament yesterday where I managed to mess the = movement up in one section and put myself an hour behind after having to = restart (and redeal) a whole session. Anyway during the day had a number = of interesting calls most of which were relatively straight forward.=20 Called to one table where a director was playing. Bidding (written) had = gone 2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen from paper but immediately put it = back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth player (the = director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the = inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had been = no delay in the correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and = forcing, ie neither bid is conventional. Your thoughts Regards Bruce ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0103B.117B9300 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In Belgium and the Netherlands we have = Bidding Box=20 rules.  Written bidding is only been done with = screens.
To answer your question I should like = to know=20 your W-bidding rules.
Besides that maybe the hand is = interesting for the=20 answer.
At school we were not allowed to scrib. = In=20 Australia .  . . .
My experience as player as well is that = this=20 happens from time to time. It is not a slip but an unconcentrated bid. = 1NT=20 occurs more frequently than 2NT. The player knows what to do but he = forgets that=20 it was 2NT. That means that Law 27 should be applied, but . . = .
Only the table director can decide what = happened.=20 As you described it I think the player was just in time thinking that = the bid=20 was 2NT. The fourth player was scribbing and that is not courtious.=20
I think the TD has to read the = W-bidding=20 rules.
Ben
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bruce.Small
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 12:27 AM
Subject: [BLML] What takes precidence

Hi All
 
Had a fun local tournament yesterday = where I=20 managed to mess the movement up in one section and put myself an hour = behind=20 after having to restart (and redeal) a whole session. Anyway during the = day had=20 a number of interesting calls most of which were relatively straight = forward.=20
 
Called to one table where a director = was playing.=20 Bidding (written) had gone
2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen = from paper but=20 immediately put it back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth = player=20 (the director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the=20 inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had been = no delay=20 in the correction. 2Nt is strong flat hand and 3H is suit and forcing, = ie=20 neither bid is conventional.
 
Your thoughts
 
Regards
 
Bruce
------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0103B.117B9300-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 27 23:32:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7RDVWN27575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:31:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7RDVQt27571 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:31:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d415.iae.nl [212.61.5.161]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CD09220F43 for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:31:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005701c0102b$58b3f240$92033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:32:27 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > I expect to have a bit of spare time in Maastricht, especially since > > That means I'll do all the Appeals work then ? > > > my doctor has made some very stroppy noises about drinking, and I am > > and all the drinking ? Herman, I think you have to have all the drinks as well! If you need help . . . . Ben > 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 Mon Aug 28 03:02:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7RH0Ye27659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7RH0Rt27655 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:00:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d135.iae.nl [212.61.3.135]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E67D020F3F for ; Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:00:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00c001c01048$83312660$92033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Passing out Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:01:12 +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: "Dany Haimovici" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out > We will open a special department for Herman's Heart fantasies...... > > Enjoy at the 12345th Olympics at Maaaaaaaastricht. > > Dany The pronounciation done by inhabitants of Maastricht is as follows: Messtrig, the second syllable long-drawn-out. Ben > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > As dealer, North opens with a Pass. West now Passes out of turn. North decides > > > to accept West's Pass, and now North makes a lead-directing opening bid of 1H > > > with 5 points (KQxxx in hearts and out). > > > > > > > This happened to me yesterday !!!! > > > > I held xx KQxxx xx xxxx in first seat and decided that it > > was not enough to open a dutch two with. So I passed > > > > Then my RHO also passed. > > > > I accepted, opened 2He, and partner alerted. > > When asked what it was, he answered "Muiderberg, but > > obviously not strong enough for a real one. I'm guessing 5 > > points." > > > > He bid 4He and I made it. > > > > My partner does not read blml. > > > > -- > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 28 07:40:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7RLcYV27795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:38:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7RLcTt27791 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:38:30 +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 HAA02210 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:34:30 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:35:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:37:47 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/08/2000 08:32:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: "But the plain vanilla bid of a heart in this setting seems to be legit. The question, I suspect is whether is is regulable as an "opening" bid more than a king less than average. I concur with those who point out that is is the player's SECOND call, so therefore would not be bound by that." L40D refers to an initial action by a *partnership*. That seems to imply that a Pass is not an action, or systemic third hand openings with more than a king below average strength would be non-regulable. Therefore, although 1H is North's second call, it is the partnership's *first* action, and so subject to regulation. 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 Mon Aug 28 15:08:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7S56fE27952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:06:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com [139.134.5.197]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7S56at27948 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:06:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va720117 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:06:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-205.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.205]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Provisional-MailRouter V2.9b 11/1642220); 28 Aug 2000 15:06:27 Message-ID: <002901c01111$daf55000$4be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:50:57 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C01163.F4AA2640" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C01163.F4AA2640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ben Schelen wrote: >To answer your question I should like to know your >W-bidding rules. Bruce Small, who started this thread, is from New Zealand, not Australia. =20 I believe that the only online Written Bidding rules are at www.nswba.com.au/member/nswtregs.doc=20 where Section 6.2 is W-Bidding regs and 6.1 is Bidding Box regs. But these regulations are for NSW (a part of Australia), so they are not what you want to know. Peter Gill Sydney NSW Australia.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C01163.F4AA2640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ben Schelen wrote:
>To answer your question I should = like to=20 know your
>W-bidding rules.
 
Bruce Small, who started this thread, is from New Zealand,
not Australia.  
 
I believe that the only online Written Bidding rules are at
www.nswba.com.au/mem= ber/nswtregs.doc 
 
where Section 6.2 is W-Bidding regs and 6.1 is Bidding Box = regs.
But these regulations are for NSW (a part of Australia), so they = are
not what you want to know.
 
Peter Gill
Sydney NSW Australia. 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C01163.F4AA2640-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 28 20:53:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SApqx28067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:51:52 +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 (oe41.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SApkt28063 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:51:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:51:38 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" References: <200008271752.NAA28364@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: [BLML] Exposed card with no TD call... Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:51:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2000 10:51:38.0774 (UTC) FILETIME=[F140B360:01C010DD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner has written to me in an email which I am shamelessly quoting in defiance of accepted Netiquette: > [Exposed card with no TD call...] > You have said you would consider L11A but not how. In particular, I think > the question is how to rule on the following facts: > 1. Nobody is trying anything funny. > 2. East was genuinely unaware that there were lead penalties. > 3. South knew about lead penalties and assumed East knew too. > 4. East led the diamond in tempo, not with undue haste, but there was > still no reasonable chance for South to stop him. South after all had > no reason to expect East to lead. > > I can see three possible rulings: > a. Club lead required, diamond a penalty card. Everyone but me wants to > rule this way, as far as I can tell. > b. Diamond is led, club remains a penalty card. > c. Club lead is required, diamond goes back into East's hand. > > How does one decide which? Law 11A says: +++The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty.+++ Since East did not know there were lead penalties, and since South was likely to gain from this, L11A applies in this case. There are no lead penalties, thus the diamond stands as played, and the TD deems the exposed card [L50] not to be a penalty card. This ruling is clear. > 4. East led the diamond in tempo, not with undue haste, but there was > still no reasonable chance for South to stop him. South after all had > no reason to expect East to lead. I disagree with this comment: if South wants to exert his rights then he knows he needs the TD. There are millions of briodge players who do not know the Laws and for South to not expect East to lead is extremely naive. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Maastricht, Netherlands [currently] Email both eddresses please http://blakjak.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 Aug 28 20:58:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SAui328080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:56:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SAuct28076 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:56:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:56:30 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:56:40 +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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2000 10:56:30.0688 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F3F3E00:01C010DE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I expect to have a bit of spare time in Maastricht, especially since >That means I'll do all the Appeals work then ? >> my doctor has made some very stroppy noises about drinking, and I am >and all the drinking ? When Herman finally bothered to turn up, having missed the opening meeting, he has done much of the talking. As for eating and drinking, we had a lovely meal in an Italian restyaurant after they turned Omar Sharif away for us! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Maastricht, Netherlands [currently] Email both eddresses please http://blakjak.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 Aug 28 21:26:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SBP6B28102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:25:06 +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 e7SBOxt28098 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:25:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id NAA01845; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:23:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA15615; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:24:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000828133410.00812ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:34:10 +0200 To: "Bruce.Small" , "bridge-laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What takes precidence In-Reply-To: <003401c00fac$d76536a0$555337d2@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:27 27/08/00 +1200, Bruce.Small wrote: > Called to one table where a director was playing. Bidding (written) >had gone 2Nt-p-2H. The player had lifted pen from paper but immediately >put it back done and corrected to 3H. I was called by fourth player (the >director). So which takes precidence: the insufficient bid or the >inadvertant bid. Three out of four of the players agreed there had been no >delay in the correction. AG : perhaps you will now see why BBs are preferable to written bidding. My gut feeling is to rule as if, with BBs at the table, The player pulled out 2H, placed it on the table, then quickly took it back and replaced it by 3H - even with a slight pause, due to horror in seeing one's error. So the fact that someone disagrees on the presence or absence of a pause is not a determining factor. Une element of proof could be the fact that they were playing Transfer bids over 1NT ; then, it would be impossible that he 'saw' 1NT, bid 2H facing that one, then realized his error. And it would be obvious that 2H was an ordinairy lapsus calami. In either case, I would be inclined to rule material error, since the player could not seriously be thinking of bidding 2H over 2NT. A correction 'after thought' (disallowed) would usually be between two 'possible' bids. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 28 21:57:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SBts128122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7SBtmt28118 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:55:48 +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 NAA23360; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:56:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA02388; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:55:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000828140455.008de340@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:04:55 +0200 To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed card with no TD call... In-Reply-To: References: <200008271752.NAA28364@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:51 28/08/00 +0200, David Stevenson wrote: >Steve Willner has written to me in an email which I am shamelessly quoting >in defiance of accepted Netiquette: > >> [Exposed card with no TD call...] >> You have said you would consider L11A but not how. In particular, I think >> the question is how to rule on the following facts: >> 1. Nobody is trying anything funny. >> 2. East was genuinely unaware that there were lead penalties. >> 3. South knew about lead penalties and assumed East knew too. >> 4. East led the diamond in tempo, not with undue haste, but there was >> still no reasonable chance for South to stop him. South after all had >> no reason to expect East to lead. >> >> I can see three possible rulings: >> a. Club lead required, diamond a penalty card. Everyone but me wants to >> rule this way, as far as I can tell. >> b. Diamond is led, club remains a penalty card. >> c. Club lead is required, diamond goes back into East's hand. >> >> How does one decide which? AG : if I were sure that both sides knew that the director must be summoned in that case (that is, they are not complete beginners), I would be inclined to give both sides the worst of the ruling : South gets whatever result seems the most reasonable with a diamond switch at this time (b). East gets whatever result seems at all reasonable with the forced club return and the diamond a penalty card (a). Because they are both offending sides, in not having acted properly under law 9B. If they did ,the problem would not have arisen. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 28 23:17:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SDFNq28326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:15:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SDFIt28322 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:15:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 06:15:04 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" References: <200008271752.NAA28364@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20000828140455.008de340@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed card with no TD call... Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:15:12 +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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2000 13:15:04.0915 (UTC) FILETIME=[FAE99A30:01C010F1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "David Stevenson" ; "BLML" Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed card with no TD call... > At 12:51 28/08/00 +0200, David Stevenson wrote: > >Steve Willner has written to me in an email which I am shamelessly quoting > >in defiance of accepted Netiquette: > > > >> [Exposed card with no TD call...] > >> You have said you would consider L11A but not how. In particular, I think > >> the question is how to rule on the following facts: > >> 1. Nobody is trying anything funny. > >> 2. East was genuinely unaware that there were lead penalties. > >> 3. South knew about lead penalties and assumed East knew too. > >> 4. East led the diamond in tempo, not with undue haste, but there was > >> still no reasonable chance for South to stop him. South after all had > >> no reason to expect East to lead. > >> > >> I can see three possible rulings: > >> a. Club lead required, diamond a penalty card. Everyone but me wants to > >> rule this way, as far as I can tell. > >> b. Diamond is led, club remains a penalty card. > >> c. Club lead is required, diamond goes back into East's hand. > >> > >> How does one decide which? > > AG : if I were sure that both sides knew that the director must be summoned > in that case (that is, they are not complete beginners), I would be > inclined to give both sides the worst of the ruling : > South gets whatever result seems the most reasonable with a diamond switch > at this time (b). > East gets whatever result seems at all reasonable with the forced club > return and the diamond a penalty card (a). > > Because they are both offending sides, in not having acted properly under > law 9B. > If they did ,the problem would not have arisen. But what gives you the right to ignore the Law? You have not followed Law 11A. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Maastricht, Netherlands [currently] Email both eddresses please http://blakjak.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 Aug 29 00:34:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SEWoa28374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:32:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rmx460-mta.mail.com (rmx460-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SEWet28370 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:32:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from web613-ec.mail.com (web613-ec.mail.com [165.251.32.88]) by rmx460-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA12009 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <385041617.967473156269.JavaMail.root@web613-ec.mail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:32:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-Originating-IP: 195.64.60.246 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ------Original Message------ From: "David Stevenson" To: BLML Sent: August 28, 2000 10:56:40 AM GMT Subject: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered ...... When Herman finally bothered to turn up, having missed the opening meeting, he has done much of the talking. As for eating and drinking, we had a lovely meal in an Italian restyaurant after they turned Omar Sharif away for us! Don't exaggerate, David ! We got a table, despite not having made a reservation, but it meant there was no room for Omar Sharif who arrived a bit later. I am currently at the bridge Olympiad in Maastricht. Do not save this address, it is only temporary. Do continue to use my regular address ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.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 Aug 29 00:37:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SEadv28395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:36:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SEaXt28391 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA22066 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA06416 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:36:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008281436.KAA06416@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > L40D refers to an initial action by a *partnership*. Yes, if dealer opens, there is no doubt that "actions" by second hand can be regulated. (The ACBL and, I think, many other SO's choose not to exercise this authority.) > That seems to imply > that a Pass is not an action, or systemic third hand openings with more > than a king below average strength would be non-regulable. I agree with the conclusion, even if not the premise. The full phrase is "initial actions at the one level." (I had to read it three times before realizing that 'actions' is plural. What does that mean? How can there be more than one initial action?) The full phrase suggests to me that, whether dealer's pass is an action or not, it is not at the one level, and the initial action at the one level is what can be regulated. However, I don't believe the interpretation of 'actions' is at all clear. What about 1C-P-P-1S- ? For the non-dealer's side, was the 'initial action at the one level' the pass or the 1S bid? > Therefore, although 1H is North's second call, it is the partnership's > *first* action, and so subject to regulation. At least it is the partnership's first action at the one level. Because it's an overcall, many SO's don't regulate it, but they could if they wanted to. Grattan: I'm not sure whether the LC will wish to clarify this point or not. I can imagine you would rather leave it to SO's to adopt their own regulations. But if you do wish to clarify, I think you might replace 'actions' with one of 'bid', 'call', or 'call other than pass'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 02:06:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SG4Ph28437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:04:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7SG4Jt28433 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:04:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14708; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:04:13 -0700 Message-Id: <200008281604.JAA14708@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Passing out In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:02:06 PDT." Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:04:13 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > North-South frequently accept opponents' calls out of turn so as to make > > > lead-directing openings. > > On reflection, this seems like a supremely dumb idea. If N-S are > > thinking about the best way to get a good score on defense, it seems > > much, much better not to accept West's POOT, thus barring West from > > the auction (L30B2(a)). I mean, if you're expecting to defend, isn't > > it better to silence one of the opponents and let the other opponent > > guess where to play it, than to let the opponents bid normally and get > > to their best spot, even with a free lead-director? > > If you like a swingy "all tops and bottoms, and hopefully more tops and > bottoms" game, yes, do it your way. Making a free lead director and then > letting the opponents reach their normal contract, on the other hand, will > get you an average result often, a top occasionally (when the lead matters > and wouldn't have been found otherwise) and a bottom only very rarely. I > think both courses of action have similar expectations, but yours has a > much higher variance. I seriously doubt that the expectation is similar. If a hand belongs to the opponents, and we silence one opponent and make the other one guess, looking at just his hand, what the correct contract is, how often would you think he's going to get it right? I really don't know, but I'd guess that he's going to find the "normal" contract at most 20-25% of the time, probably less. A small percentage of the time, maybe 3%, he will guess an "abnormal" contract that happens to be the right place. The rest of the time, he will just be plain wrong. I'm just guessing at these percentages, and I don't know of any study that has been done that would indicate what the percentages are. But I could, if I had the time and inclination, do an experiment myself: Deal out all four hands; then pick up the South hand, and looking at just that hand, try to guess what contract N-S belong in. How often do you think I would get it right? Not very. Anyway, if my percentages are close, it means that if you silence one opponent, you'll get a top about 75% of the time and a bottom about 3% of the time. This seems a lot better than the expectation one would get from letting the opponents get to their normal spot. It doesn't make strategic sense to me to eschew this strategy for a "less swingy" one with a much more average expectation, just because you're afraid of the 3% chance of getting a bottom. Just MHO. But I stand by my original assessment. -- 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 Tue Aug 29 03:00:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SGwno28467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:58:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SGwgt28463 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:58:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h104.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.104]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SGwWN05140 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:58:32 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:55:43 +0400 From: Vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Again claims References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7CB79806F7538C6C142C26CC" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7CB79806F7538C6C142C26CC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------7CB79806F7538C6C142C26CC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="claims.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="claims.txt" Hi all:) There are several problems I doubt I understand in right way. I guess - because of my language scantiness:) I would appreciate explanations and opinions very much. "LAW 69 - ACQUIESCENCE IN CLAIM OR CONCESSION A. When Acquiescence Occurs Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play." Does it mean that if after opponents' claim I have objection and without calling a TD I ask about it, receive answer and only after that I assent - the Law 69 is not relevant? And in such case this consent cannot be withdrawn under L69B? And what about case if I (without any question) would said "Agree"? The same - or in such a case L69B still would be in force? "LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had already defeated." I definitly do not understand what this Law means. If the contract had already been fulfilled (or defeated) then it means that it had happened BEFORE this concession. As any concession (L68) must refer to "future" tricks - so this sub-law (L71B) does not deal with this concession. It rather concerns to incorrect scoring/computing or even error in establishing of the played contract - L79. Might it be that L71B should be situated rather in L79 than in L71? Thank you in advance Vitold --------------7CB79806F7538C6C142C26CC-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 03:51:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SHnt828527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 03:49:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7SHnmt28523 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 03:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16436; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:49:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200008281749.KAA16436@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Again claims In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:55:43 PDT." <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:49:43 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Vitold wrote: > Hi all:) > > There are several problems I doubt I understand in right way. > I guess - because of my language scantiness:) I would appreciate > explanations and opinions very much. > > "LAW 69 - ACQUIESCENCE IN CLAIM OR CONCESSION > A. When Acquiescence Occurs > Acquiescence occurs when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim > or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a > call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends. The board is > scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost > in play." > > Does it mean that if after opponents' claim I have objection and > without calling a TD I ask about it, receive answer and only after that > I assent - the Law 69 is not relevant? No, I don't think so. I think "raises no objection" in the Law means that you didn't raise an objection *after* you assented. If you raised an objection previously, had your doubts satisfied, and then assented to the claim, without raising another objection before calling on the next board or before the end of the round, Law 69 would apply at that point. Law 69B would still apply if relevant. > And in such case this consent > cannot be withdrawn under L69B? And what about case if I (without any > question) would said "Agree"? The same - or in such a case L69B still > would be in force? Law 69B would still apply. Note that Law 69B only says you can withdraw your acquiescence only in cases where you assented to a result that COULD NOT POSSIBLY occur (e.g. you assented to declarer's claim of 10 tricks when your side had already taken four). Law 69B doesn't apply to simple objections like "we still have a trump and declarer didn't say whether he would draw trumps." > "LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction > period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall > cancel a concession: > B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated > if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, > or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had > already defeated." > > I definitly do not understand what this Law means. If the contract had > already been fulfilled (or defeated) then it means that it had happened > BEFORE this concession. As any concession (L68) must refer to "future" > tricks - so this sub-law (L71B) does not deal with this concession. It > rather concerns to incorrect scoring/computing or even error in > establishing of the played contract - L79. Might it be that L71B should > be situated rather in L79 than in L71? The problem, I think, is that L69A says that the board is scored according to the claim or concession once both sides agree. So, technically, it can't be considered a "scoring error" if declarer in 4S takes 10 tricks, then concedes down 1, and the defense (who is also asleep) agrees. A "scoring error" would be if the score is computed or written down wrong, for example declarer is nonvulnerable and goes down 1 undoubled, but scores it as -100 instead of -50. There's a subtle difference. Hope this helps, -- 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 Tue Aug 29 05:47:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SJix628587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:44:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f174.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SJiqt28583 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 05:44:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:44:44 -0700 Received: from 172.142.195.31 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:44:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.195.31] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Again claims Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:44:44 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2000 19:44:44.0488 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A395480:01C01128] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Vitold wrote: > > "LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED > > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction > > period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall > > cancel a concession: > > B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated > > if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, > > or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had > > already defeated." > > > > I definitly do not understand what this Law means. If the contract had > > already been fulfilled (or defeated) then it means that it had happened > > BEFORE this concession. As any concession (L68) must refer to "future" > > tricks - so this sub-law (L71B) does not deal with this concession. It > > rather concerns to incorrect scoring/computing or even error in > > establishing of the played contract - L79. Might it be that L71B should > > be situated rather in L79 than in L71? > >The problem, I think, is that L69A says that the board is scored >according to the claim or concession once both sides agree. So, >technically, it can't be considered a "scoring error" if declarer in >4S takes 10 tricks, then concedes down 1, and the defense (who is also >asleep) agrees. A "scoring error" would be if the score is computed >or written down wrong, for example declarer is nonvulnerable and goes >down 1 undoubled, but scores it as -100 instead of -50. There's a >subtle difference. It's also redundant. The first half of 71A says that a claim can be cancelled if you concede a trick that you have already won. It's also silly in and of itself since it only corrects the problem at the boundary with the bid contract. If you bid 2S, took 10 tricks, and claimed for 140, then 71B is of no use. -Todd _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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 Aug 29 06:03:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SK1ms28618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:01:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7SK1gt28614 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from c06310 (user-1054m5j.dsl.mindspring.com [64.82.88.179]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01935 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000828160140.013e3ffc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:01:40 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Instuif Appeal 3 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000822115757.008cd470@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <39A137EB.3086238@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:57 AM 8/22/2000 +0200, Alain wrote: >At 16:08 21/08/00 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>I don't argue with that, but I do argue with what they did >>next : they gave the money back. >>I feel that even if they discuss this for half an hour, and >>award a penalty to the opponent, that there was no merit in >>the appeal and the money ought not have been refunded. > >Well, there is something more in that appeal. The non-offending side said >that not correcting the bid was in some way detrimental to them (correcting >to 2S in due time would have let the bidding continue normally). So, >although one is not compelled to correct the bid, active ethics say you >should. Too bad that the AC felt emboldened to rule in terms of Active Ethics (whatever that means), while igoring their legal obligations. In fact, this appeal to AE is completely emblematic of all that is wrong with relying on such a fuzzy concept as a basis for legal reasoning. AFAIK, no published version of AE recommends that a bidder who is alerted to a mistaken bid by partner's explanation has a duty to change his bid. It is merely the unsupported opinion of this AC that such an obligation exists. It is understandable, unfortunately, when one of the bridge world's best-known personalities adopts such an approach that others believe that they, too, can make arbitrary and random rulings about what players should have done, without reference to the Laws. Shame on the committee. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 08:44:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SMg4t28707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:42:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7SMfxt28703 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:41:59 +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 IAA01881 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:37:59 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:38:30 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3 (Intl)) with SMTP id 2000082909353942:973 ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:35:39 +1000 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 4A256949.0081ECF7 ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:39:08 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Merry-go-round Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 29/08/2000 09:35:39 AM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 29/08/2000 09:35:40 AM, Serialize complete at 29/08/2000 09:35:40 AM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was re-reading a 1972 Bridge World, and a letter from a reader mentioned this dialogue: 1. We play very weak pre-empts. 2. In that case, we will play penalty doubles of your pre-empts. 3. In that case, against you we will now use the rule of two and three. 4. In that case, we will play takeout doubles of your pre-empts. 5. Return to 1. As TD, how would you rule? (I would prohibit a pre-empt at this table :-)) Best wishes Richard Hills richard.hills@immi.gov.au *************************** Important Warning! *************************** This electronic communication (including any attached files) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information and is only intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have permission to read, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or retain any part of this communication or its attachments in any form. If this e-mail was sent to you by mistake, please take the time to notify the sender so that they can identify the problem and avoid any more mistakes in sending e-mail to you. The unauthorised use of information contained in this communication or its attachments may result in legal action against any person who uses 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 Tue Aug 29 09:33:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7SNWE528733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:32:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7SNW7t28729 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldl5e.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.212.174]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA32741 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39AAF6EC.BFBD9585@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:34:04 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round References: <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > I was re-reading a 1972 Bridge World, and a letter from a reader mentioned this > dialogue: > > 1. We play very weak pre-empts. > > 2. In that case, we will play penalty doubles of your pre-empts. > > 3. In that case, against you we will now use the rule of two and three. > > 4. In that case, we will play takeout doubles of your pre-empts. > > 5. Return to 1. > > As TD, how would you rule? (I would prohibit a pre-empt at this table :-)) We've run through this before, but: The vast majority states that the first to bid must be the one to commit. This has always seemed wrong to me. In my opinion, natural bids should take precedence over artificial bids; so I would rule that the doublers must commit first. Certain types of conventional bids are designed to take advantage of opponents' requirement to bid honestly. Against the DONT defense to 1N, for instance, a psyche of 1N may win. Against natural, that is quite unlikely. Can I psych 1N with some frequency against this convention? I think I should be allowed to. These sorts of advance defenses to conventional calls seem correct to me. As for natural bids, I agree that the first to call should commit first. --JRM, hoping Richard does not take legal action against me as threatened in his sig. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 10:19:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7T0HgU28764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:17:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7T0Hat28760 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23583; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:17:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200008290017.RAA23583@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:41:12 PDT." <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:17:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > I was re-reading a 1972 Bridge World, and a letter from a reader > mentioned this dialogue: > > 1. We play very weak pre-empts. > > 2. In that case, we will play penalty doubles of your pre-empts. > > 3. In that case, against you we will now use the rule of two and three. > > 4. In that case, we will play takeout doubles of your pre-empts. > > 5. Return to 1. > > As TD, how would you rule? (I would prohibit a pre-empt at this table :-)) >From what I've read in the past, ACBL policy is to require the pair that would call first to decide first how they're going to play, and then stick with it. In this example, since the preempt comes before the double, the preemptors would have to decide whether to play very weak preempts, and then the opponents would say whether they're playing takeout or penalty doubles, and then no one would get to change their minds (for as long as those two pairs play against each other). I've seen this "problem" cited several times on RGB as an argument that, in the most extreme form, players should never base their calls (including judgment or choice of tactics) on the system that the opponents would use after the calls. For example, if the opponents are playing Fishbein, these arguers say you're still required to preempt if you have a weak preempt that you might open at another table. However, I've never, in my 20 years of playing, heard of the merry-go-round problem occuring in real life. IMHO, if it does occur, it's certainly not enough of a problem to suggest that we must bid as if we had no idea what the opponents' defenses to our bids are. -- 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 Tue Aug 29 20:20:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TAHO728996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:17:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TAHGt28992 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:17:18 +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 MAA04195; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:17:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA27497; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:16:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000829122632.008e2da0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:26:32 +0200 To: Vitold , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Again claims In-Reply-To: <39AA998D.9B55E03C@elnet.msk.ru> References: <00c801c00e92$44e13d80$67da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:55 28/08/00 +0400, you wrote: >B. Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated >if declarer has conceded defeat of a contract he had already fulfilled, >or a defender has conceded fulfilment of a contract his side had >already defeated." > >I definitly do not understand what this Law means. If the contract had >already been fulfilled (or defeated) then it means that it had happened >BEFORE this concession. A AG : this law is there to cover cases where the concession is made under a wrong belief about the number of tricks. I can think of at least three cases : a) South, who marked only seven tricks to his side while he has nine nine, says : 'You got the rest. 1NT just made'. But he already made 9 tricks, so he will be awarded them. b) South says 'you get the last four tricks' but only three tricks remain to be made (I've seen this before) c) South, who defends against 4S but for some reason thinks the opponents play in 2S, says 'OK, you get the last three tricks. Just made' but of course, since the contract is 4S, it is already two down. So it is there, not to correct the definition of a concession, but to say that effective tricks take precedence over statements about results. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 20:40:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TAduX29010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:39:56 +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 (oe15.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.119]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TAdot29006 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:39:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 03:39:43 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:39:52 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2000 10:39:43.0288 (UTC) FILETIME=[7133F380:01C011A5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a doubleton. You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, but there are restrictions if it is natural. Is the 1C opening natural? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 20:45:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TAhvG29027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:43:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TAhpt29023 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:43:51 +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 MAA10008; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:44:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA11177; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:43:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000829125308.008e4350@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:53:08 +0200 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:41 29/08/00 +1000, you wrote: > > >I was re-reading a 1972 Bridge World, and a letter from a reader mentioned this >dialogue: > >1. We play very weak pre-empts. > >2. In that case, we will play penalty doubles of your pre-empts. > >3. In that case, against you we will now use the rule of two and three. > >4. In that case, we will play takeout doubles of your pre-empts. >5. Return to 1. > >As TD, how would you rule? (I would prohibit a pre-empt at this table :-)) AG : I've seen such a case. The classical procedure is : N/S : "we play 10-12 NT" E : "OK. Partner, if you bid 2C, it means, etc." It is *not* : E/W : "we play so and so against weak NT, such and such against strong ones" N : "then let's play weak NT" The conventions must be stated, and then a defense against them is devised, so the preemptors have to state somathing and stick to it, and their opponents are allowed to adapt. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 20:47:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TAjmd29040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:45:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TAjft29036 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:45:42 +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 MAA10398; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:46:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA12109; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:45:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000829125458.008eca10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:54:58 +0200 To: "John R. Mayne" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <39AAF6EC.BFBD9585@mindspring.com> References: <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:34 28/08/00 -0700, you wrote: > >This has always seemed wrong to me. In my opinion, natural bids should >take precedence over artificial bids; so I would rule that the doublers >must commit first. Certain types of conventional bids are designed to >take advantage of opponents' requirement to bid honestly. AG : I can live with that one, but this example isn't an application : neither T/O doubles nor penalty doubles of opening bids are considered conventions (the proof being that they might not be restricted) A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 21:20:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TBIgT29065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:18:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TBIZt29061 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:18:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA08449; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:18:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA10910; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:18:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:18:27 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-Reply-To: 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, 29 Aug 2000, David Stevenson wrote: > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead > of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a > doubleton. > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, > but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? It should be, as no special defenses are needed w.r.t. a standard natural 1C opening bid. Bridge-wise it makes sense to treat it as natural. What happens is that w.r.t. a standard 1M=5+, 1m=3+ base, a hand with exactly a 4=4=3=2 pattern (outside the NT opening range), is moved from the 1D to the 1C opening bid. This is pattern is sufficiently rare to affect the expected number of clubs in openers hand (or diamonds after a 1D opener, for that matter). So, it should not affect the way the opponents defend against a natural 1C opener and thus it should regarded as natural. (In fact, when defending against a Polish Club system, with 1C=12-14 BAL, 11-18 with clubs or 19+, or some variation thereof, the 1C opener is best treated as natural). In Holland, the WEKO has specifically ruled that 1C in this system is a natural opening bid. 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). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 21:35:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TBYI629078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:34:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TBYCt29074 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:34:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h197.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.197]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TBXeN26965; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:33:40 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <39AB9FC7.809D59EF@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:34:32 +0400 From: Vitold Brushtunov X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en]C-compaq (Win98; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) We have a lot of pairs that use similar openings. We treat such opening as "prepatory 1 club" - non-natural. Vitold David Stevenson wrote: > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead > of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a > doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, > but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 29 21:37:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TBb2529090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:37:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TBatt29086 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:30:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:30:52 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead >of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a >doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, >but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? Can't speak for international regulations, but some time ago here in the Netherlands, there was an appeal about exactly this case (BSC after 1C- opening on a doubleton). It was then decided that an 1C-opening on a doubleton in an otherwise natural system (like this 5-card major system) for the purpose of this regulation is to be treated as natural, and hence defences against this 1C are subject to restrictions. These are of course Dutch regulations, but they seem very reasonable to me. -- 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 Tue Aug 29 22:51:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TCn9L29183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:49:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TCn0t29179 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:49:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e7TCmu807388 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:48:57 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000829084553.00b0e7b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:49:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Merry-go-round In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000829125458.008eca10@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <39AAF6EC.BFBD9585@mindspring.com> <4A256949.0081EBE7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:54 AM 8/29/00, alain wrote: >AG : I can live with that one, but this example isn't an application : >neither T/O doubles nor penalty doubles of opening bids are considered >conventions (the proof being that they might not be restricted) While it may be true that no SOs anywhere put any restrictions on takeout doubles, they most certainly are conventional by any reasonable definition, including the one in TFLB ("a call that... conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the... last denomination named"), and could legally be restricted, or even banned, by any SO that saw fit to do so. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 22:56:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TCruL29195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TCrkt29191 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e7TCrh807709 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:53:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000829085018.00b0f3c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:54:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:39 AM 8/29/00, David wrote: > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead >of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a >doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, >but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? Not in the ACBL, which has decreed that for an opening 1-bid in a suit to be natural, it must promise at least a 4-card suit if a major or a 3-card suit if a minor. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 23:30:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TDSsu29222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:28:54 +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 (oe35.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TDSkt29218 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:28:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 06:28:38 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Merry-go-round Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:28:46 +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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2000 13:28:38.0635 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A572BB0:01C011BD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------1 I was re-reading a 1972 Bridge World, and a letter from a reader mentioned this dialogue: 1. We play very weak pre-empts. 2. In that case, we will play penalty doubles of your pre-empts. 3. In that case, against you we will now use the rule of two and three. 4. In that case, we will play takeout doubles of your pre-empts. 5. Return to 1. As TD, how would you rule? (I would prohibit a pre-empt at this table :-)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------1 That old chestnut! The defence have told you their system, the opening side just get on with it. They cannot define their opening on what the defence do. Do you have a defnce to a Precision Club? Yes. Do you have a defence to a Natural 1C? Yes. Your oppos know this and may not force you to tell them what you are going to defend before they open 1C. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Maastricht, Netherlands [currently] Email both eddresses please http://blakjak.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 Aug 29 23:31:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TDThO29228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:29:43 +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 e7TDTXt29224 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:29:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis102.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.102]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G0200JD22T3BJ@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:29:29 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:29:26 +0200 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-reply-to: <39AB9FC7.809D59EF@elnet.msk.ru> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: BLML Message-id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000829152849.00b1c4e0@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 References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:34 29.08.2000 +0400, Vitold Brushtunov wrote: >Hi all:) >We have a lot of pairs that use similar openings. We treat such opening as >"prepatory 1 club" - non-natural. >Vitold Same here in germany. Cheers Richard >David Stevenson wrote: > > > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead > > of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a > > doubleton. > > > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, > > but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > > > Is the 1C opening natural? > > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 23:41:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TDeLr29247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:40:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7TDeEt29243 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:40:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha521099 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:40:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-53.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.53]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Relativistic-MailRouter V2.9b 7/1795308); 29 Aug 2000 23:40:35 Message-ID: <043e01c01222$cb4293e0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:37:00 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these >days, instead of opening better minor, a 1D opening always >shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is >not natural, but there are restrictions if it is natural. Sounds like WBF Regulations to me. Not surprisingly, when Maasticht reigns. > Is the 1C opening natural? The WBF Systems Policy, at http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/b7/wbfsystemspolicy/definitions.asp defines Natural as "a call or play that is not a convention (as defined in the Laws)" The Laws define Convention as: "A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." Mmm, the bit in brackets seems to doom this 1C Opener to be a Convention and thus not natural. Quel dommage. Only "seems to" - the first part of that definition is a bit of a mouthful - I suppose you could argue that a 2+ 1C is natural if it is not forcing and shows some desire to play there (the "willingness to play there" doesn't have to be a sensible or logical willingness, does it?). This requires clear thinking and logical interpretaion. David Burn where are you? What a pity that you're currently preoccupied with "leading the Open Olympiad field after 6 rounds" - or not such a pity to English BLMLers. :-)) Nonetheless, the recent BLML thread in which David Burn described July's WBF ruling about BSC overcalls over a 2+ 1C Opener is highly relevant. That Antalya case may well have created a precedent for the WBF to follow, i.e 1C is to be treated as natural even if the Rules say that it isn't. So - at WBF level - the answer is: who knows? Certainly not me. By the way, I thought "European Standard" was that with 18-19 HCP and any 4333 or 4432 shape, one always opens 1C, but with 12-14 balanced, one opens 1D with 4+D's else 1C (meaning that 1C is 4=4=3=2 if 12-14 HCP, but may be any 4432 if 18-19 HCP). Would a European tell me if this is correct? (This point caused some difficulties for at least two non-Europeans who had to play "European Standard" in the Generali Individual in Greece earlier this year.) Referring to a couple of specific examples: - if 1C is played "Bertens-Nab style" i.e. 2+ and forcing, then the desire to play 1C is not there and it is clearly not natural IMO. - if 1C is played "Maas-Ramondt style" i.e not specified as forcing on their CC, but nonetheless with a 0+ 1D response, then it's less clear but probably not natural. - if 1C is 2+ but not at all forcing, as played by many pairs in the Olympiad, then I think (without great conviction) that it probably is natural (but barely so) according to the WBF definition. A simple question with, of necessity, a complex answer, IMO. At Australian level, the answer is: it's irrelevant to our regulations here, thank goodness. Peter Gill Australia Trivia Note: Perhaps BLML is good for your bridge, as the two BLMLers playing in the Open Teams in Maastricht - David Burn and Peter Newman - both currently lead their respective sections. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 29 23:46:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TDipF29283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TDigt29279 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:44:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.218]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000829134437.TRRY16423.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:44:37 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c011bf$9e4dd2e0$da10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:47:04 +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 EBU/WBU TDs know that this 1C bid is conventional, because the Orange Book says so. OB 9.3.2 Short/Phoney/Strong and Either/0r clubs are considered conventional. Prepared Clubs (at least 3 cards) are considered natural.(except for alerting) So are you asking "is it" or are you asking "should it be"? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 11:39 AM Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? > > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead > of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a > doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, > but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 29 23:59:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TDvgx29296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:57:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TDvZt29292 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:57:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA24167; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:56:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA26377; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:56:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:56:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Peter Gill cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-Reply-To: <043e01c01222$cb4293e0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill: > By the way, I thought "European Standard" was that with 18-19 HCP and > any 4333 or 4432 shape, one always opens 1C, but with 12-14 balanced, > one opens 1D with 4+D's else 1C (meaning that 1C is 4=4=3=2 if 12-14 > HCP, but may be any 4432 if 18-19 HCP). Would a European tell me if > this is correct? No, it is certainly not standard. I've never heard of European standard, but I'd take that as 5+M-3+m (or perhaps 1S=5+, 1S=5+/44M, 1D=4+, 1C=3+). This system sounds more like Dutch doubleton. 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). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 00:17:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TEFvk29317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:15:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TEFpt29313 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:15:52 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:15:46 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:14:52 +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 anne.jones1 wrote: >EBU/WBU TDs know that this 1C bid is conventional, because the Orange Book >says so. >OB 9.3.2 >Short/Phoney/Strong and Either/0r clubs are considered conventional. >Prepared Clubs (at least 3 cards) are considered natural.(except for >alerting) >So are you asking "is it" or are you asking "should it be"? >Anne Maybe the question should not be "Is 1C natural?" (no), but "Should 1C be treated as natural for convention regulations?" Dutch regulations treat this 1C indeed as natural, but apparently this is not the case everywhere. -- 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 Aug 30 00:46:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TEinU29335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:44:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com [139.134.5.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7TEigt29331 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:44:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id xa522155 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:38:58 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-53.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.53]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Multi-Faceted-MailRouter V2.9b 7/1804072); 30 Aug 2000 00:38:58 Message-ID: <000801c0122a$ec8f13e0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:35:12 +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 Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: > >> By the way, I thought "European Standard" was that with 18-19 HCP >> and any 4333 or 4432 shape, one always opens 1C, but with 12-14 >> balanced, one opens 1D with 4+D's else 1C (meaning that 1C is >> 4=4=3=2 if 12-14 HCP, but may be any 4432 if 18-19 HCP). Would >> a European tell me if this is correct? > >No, it is certainly not standard. I've never heard of European standard, >but I'd take that as 5+M-3+m (or perhaps 1S=5+, 1S=5+/44M, 1D=4+, 1C=3+). > >This system sounds more like Dutch doubleton. Interesting. One of the Generali World Cup contestants in Greece last May coined the term by saying that "we were forced to play European Standard with a 2+ 1C Opener" in this world Individual championship. Now there's another argument - that event was meant to allow only the most basic natural methods, so the people who organised it must have thought a 2+ 1C was natural. In Group B of the Open Olympiad, no less than eight teams out of eighteen have at least one pair playing "5M, 4+D, 2+C" openings. They are: Greece, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Portugal and Scotland. All these eight teams are European. So there does seem to be a trend in the non-Scandinavian parts of Europe. 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 Wed Aug 30 01:24:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TFNeu29378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:23:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rmx614-mta.mail.com (rmx614-mta.mail.com [165.251.48.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TFNXt29373 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from web617-ec.mail.com (web617-ec.mail.com [165.251.32.96]) by rmx614-mta.mail.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA07947; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <385358571.967562607248.JavaMail.root@web617-ec.mail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:23:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Herman De Wael To: BLML , "anne.jones1" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: mail.com X-WM-FaxTo: X-Originating-IP: 195.64.60.246 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ------Original Message------ From: "anne.jones1" To: BLML Sent: August 29, 2000 1:47:04 PM GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? EBU/WBU TDs know that this 1C bid is conventional, because the Orange Book says so. OB 9.3.2 Short/Phoney/Strong and Either/0r clubs are considered conventional. Prepared Clubs (at least 3 cards) are considered natural.(except for alerting) So are you asking "is it" or are you asking "should it be"? Anne If I'll just add Belgium - where it's considered natural. This really illustrates that this is a national matter. Now as to = should it be ? I believe that the difference between opening a diamond or a club on 4=4=3=2 is so small that I do not believe there should be a considerable difference between them. As long as the difference is about alerting, there's no problem. But when the difference becomes major, such as allowability of defences, treatment of insufficiency, etc., I believe it would be wrong to treat it as non-natural. I want to be able to decide, with partner, whether I open 1Cl or 1Di on 4=4=3=2. Several things should be involved, but not the fact that I won't be able to bid 2 of the suit if I happen to overlook that RHO has already opened the bidding. In my opinion (and I play both systems = and so do all Belgians = in almost equal numbers) this system should be treated as natural. I have no problem with the French approach, which is basically the same as the Belgian + that it IS conventional when it is absolutely forcing. ----------------------------------------------- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.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 Wed Aug 30 01:50:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TFmwi29398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:48:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TFmqt29394 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:48:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d136.iae.nl [212.61.3.136]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6FF0320F34 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:48:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004d01c011d0$de67fac0$LocalHost@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:49:50 +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 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: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:39 PM Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? > > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead > of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a > doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, > but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? > -- Ben In the Netherlands is in this situation the 1C opening defined -and published by the WEKO of the NBB- as natural, but it is to be alerted. The WEKO is the Tournament Committee amongst others responsible for the Dutch competition, training courses of TDs, CC rules, alerting rules, smoking rules, BSC and HUM rules, 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 02:18:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TGGqO29423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:16:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TGGjt29419 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:16:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d386.iae.nl [212.61.5.132]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 10E0F20F39 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:16:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <006701c011d4$c4ebcaa0$LocalHost@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002a01c011bf$9e4dd2e0$da10ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:17:46 +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: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? > EBU/WBU TDs know that this 1C bid is conventional, because the Orange Book > says so. > OB 9.3.2 > Short/Phoney/Strong and Either/0r clubs are considered conventional. > Prepared Clubs (at least 3 cards) are considered natural.(except for > alerting) > So are you asking "is it" or are you asking "should it be"? > Anne Good question. As David posted it, I also understand there is more to it. Maybe it has something to do with defence (conventions). In this respect I never like expressions as "weak", "strong", "natural", etc. Is it not recommendable to write on the CC: to a doubleton 1C opening we defend according to this and to a 3+ we do that? Ben > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 11:39 AM > Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? > > > > > > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead > > of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be > a > > doubleton. > > > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not > natural, > > but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > > > Is the 1C opening natural? > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Aug 30 04:24:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TIMdj29505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:22:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TIMXt29501 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28343 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200008291824.OAA28343@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:24:41 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 August 2000 at 12:39, "David Stevenson" wrote: > > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead >of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a >doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, >but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? I think the "over here, it is considered..." bit has been adequately covered by others. I just want to ask more questions in that vein, in the common BLML method of increasing artificiality until we obviously cross the line. 1) Playing Precision, is the 1D (2+, may have longer clubs) natural? 2) Instead of it just being 1D showing 4+, one uses the minor openings to clarify NT rebids. For example, 1NT is 10-12, 1C-something; 1NT is good 15-17, 1D-1M; 1NT is 13-bad 15. In either case, 1m could be on 2+, if a balanced hand 13-17, and the other minor could be longer. Are those bids natural? 3) Playing mini-Roman 2D, 1D or 1M promises *5*. 1C promises 2+. Is it natural now?[1] I think the answer to whether any of these bids is natural, under the constraints DWS provides (any defence if not natural), is "do we want to encourage this?" I don't want to get into the debate about whether it's right to discourage "natural" bidding by restricting/allowing conventions after them, but since it's already a "fait accompli", I expect the reasoning will be the same when it comes to this. Michael. [1] Ok, I'm cheating here. In the classic Montreal Relay (where I'm stealing this from), 1C is 2+, "natural", non-forcing, but if responder chooses not to pass, 1D is "no 5-card major, at least one 4-card, bid your major if you have one" (the Relay), and 1M shows 5. Obviously, with the Puppet Stayman implications to 1C, it's conventional. mdf -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 04:53:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TIqMX29525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:52:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TIqFt29521 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 04:52:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TC0pN02533; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:00:51 GMT Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:00:51 GMT Message-Id: <200008291200.e7TC0pN02533@psa836.la.asu.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: psa836.la.asu.edu: grabiner set sender to grabiner@math.la.asu.edu using -f From: David J Grabiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (bluejak666@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead >of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a >doubleton. > > You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, >but there are restrictions if it is natural. > > Is the 1C opening natural? This is a matter for SO regulation. The ACBL rules that an opening which may be a doubleton by partnership agreement is not natural. This makes sense as long as partner will allow for it being a doubleton in the bidding. (In contrast, 1H-1NT-2C which may be on 4-5-2-2 is considered natural because partner will assume three cards and will raise to 3C with five.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 05:05:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TJ50H29547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:05:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7TJ4rt29541 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:04:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-005.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.197]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA16997 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:04:43 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <008201c011ed$3f1d9ac0$c5307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:13:38 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >On 29 August 2000 at 12:39, "David Stevenson" wrote: >> >> Your system is 5-card majors. However, as many do these days, instead >>of opening better minor, a 1D opening always shows 4+ cards, and 1 may be a >>doubleton. >> >> You are allowed to play any defence to an opening if it is not natural, >>but there are restrictions if it is natural. >> >> Is the 1C opening natural? Given that the 1C opening can be passed - it shows a willingness to play there - and therefore is not conventional as defined by TFLB. Regards, Fearghal O'Boyle -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 05:06:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TJ56x29551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:05:07 +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 e7TJ4tt29543 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:05:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA05677 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA11891 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:04:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200008291904.PAA11891@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: David J Grabiner > (In contrast, 1H-1NT-2C which may be on 4-5-2-2 is > considered natural because partner will assume three cards and will > raise to 3C with five.) I'm not sure whether this would be considered natural in the ACBL, but it doesn't matter. Any conventional method is permitted starting with opener's rebid, and thus the defenders can do whatever they want after the 2C rebid whether it's natural or not and no matter how many clubs it promises. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 09:51:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7TNoQ629684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:50:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7TNoLt29680 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:50:21 +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 JAA10385 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:46:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:46:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:49:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 30/08/2000 10:44:01 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: "Not in the ACBL, which has decreed that for an opening 1-bid in a suit to be natural, it must promise at least a 4-card suit if a major or a 3-card suit if a minor." This regulation of the ACBL is reminiscent of its notorious Marty Bergen rule. Opening a major with a three card suit is not conventional according to Law, and therefore not subject to restriction by the ACBL. Will a future ACBL regulation require a 5-card suit for 1H or 1S to be legal? :-) 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 Wed Aug 30 10:09:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7U08db29704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7U08Yt29700 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:08:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa126729 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:09:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-214-34.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.34]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Specific-MailRouter V2.9b 5/2769178); 30 Aug 2000 10:09:00 Message-ID: <003301c0127a$8f073c20$22d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:04:31 +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 David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >>1C may be a doubleton. >>..... Is the 1C opening natural? > >This is a matter for SO regulation. The ACBL rules that an opening >which may be a doubleton by partnership agreement is not natural. > >This makes sense as long as partner will allow for it being a doubleton >in the bidding. (In contrast, 1H-1NT-2C which may be on 4-5-2-2 is >considered natural because partner will assume three cards and will >raise to 3C with five.) "In contrast"? Does the simple raise 1C-2C show at least six clubs? :)) Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 12:27:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7U2OTN29762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:24:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7U2OMt29758 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:24:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13TxY1-0006M2-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:24:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:22:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? References: <003301c0127a$8f073c20$22d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <003301c0127a$8f073c20$22d636cb@gillp.bigpond.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 <003301c0127a$8f073c20$22d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >David Grabiner wrote: >>David Stevenson writes: >>>1C may be a doubleton. >>>..... Is the 1C opening natural? >> >>This is a matter for SO regulation. The ACBL rules that an opening >>which may be a doubleton by partnership agreement is not natural. >> >>This makes sense as long as partner will allow for it being a doubleton >>in the bidding. (In contrast, 1H-1NT-2C which may be on 4-5-2-2 is >>considered natural because partner will assume three cards and will >>raise to 3C with five.) > > >"In contrast"? Does the simple raise 1C-2C show at least six clubs? :)) > >Peter Gill. > It's a while since I said this: "I totally fail to comprehend how a nation that can land men on the moon and bring them back can also believe that the best way to describe a balanced 19 point hand is to open a small doubleton" fwiw I also fail to understand why they have to have opening values to open and need a rock crusher to make a 2/1. Open light and pre- emptively, make a light 2/1 and then get out of the auction. Now its their problem. 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 Wed Aug 30 17:06:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7U74Tj29895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:04:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7U74Lt29891 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:04:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA22225 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:04:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA12346 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:04:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:04:13 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-Reply-To: <200008291824.OAA28343@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 Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Michael Farebrother wrote: > On 29 August 2000 at 12:39, "David Stevenson" wrote: > 1) Playing Precision, is the 1D (2+, may have longer clubs) natural? No. There is a huge difference between the Precision 1D and the 1C in the 5/5/4/2 natural system discussed before: in the latter case, there is a natural opening bid available in every suit and there is one (relatively rare) pattern that has to be put into some opening bid. In the response/rebid structure, one does not have to make any adjustments for the fact that opener can have only 2 clubs w.r.t. "standard" and still have a playable system. In Precision, this is not true: lots of hands with 4/5 clubs cannot be opened with a natural bid, and the response/rebid structure has needs major adjustments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 19:34:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7U9Wop29949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:32:50 +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 (f56.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7U9Wjt29945 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:32:37 -0700 Received: from 195.64.60.246 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:32:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "Linda Trent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] I shall tell you my conclusions when I have considered Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:32:37 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2000 09:32:37.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C08CB20:01C01265] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I expect to have a bit of spare time in Maastricht, especially since That means I'll do all the Appeals work then ? >my doctor has made some very stroppy noises about drinking, and I am and all the drinking ? Herman, I think you have to have all the drinks as well! If you need help . . . . Ben Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium Don't worry - he is getting lots of help - I have the hangover to prove it... and don't worry - we will manage to corrupt Mr. S before it is over :-) I also heard a rumor that Herman may show up at a table and use those rectangular pieces of paper we are all familiar with :-) _______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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 Wed Aug 30 19:41:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7U9eMY29967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:40:22 +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 (oe8.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.112]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7U9eGt29962 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:40:08 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:40:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C01277.130ED040" 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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2000 09:40:08.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[48BD3EE0:01C01266] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C01277.130ED040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Martin Sinot wrote: >anne.jones1 wrote: >>EBU/WBU TDs know that this 1C bid is conventional, because the Orange = Book >>says so. >>OB 9.3.2 >>Short/Phoney/Strong and Either/0r clubs are considered conventional. >>Prepared Clubs (at least 3 cards) are considered natural.(except for >>alerting) >>So are you asking "is it" or are you asking "should it be"? >>Anne >Maybe the question should not be "Is 1C natural?" (no), but "Should 1C >be treated as natural for convention regulations?" >Dutch regulations treat this 1C indeed as natural, but apparently this >is not the case everywhere. The WBF reg depends on whether it is natural, which is why I am = asking. If the Dutch authorities have laid down the answer [as the = English/Welsh authorities have] then there is no problem, of course. Cheers --=20 David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Now in Maastricht, Netherlands Copy both eddresses please Web: http://blakjak.com ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C01277.130ED040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Martin Sinot wrote:
>anne.jones1 = wrote:

>>EBU/WBU TDs=20 know that this 1C bid is conventional, because the Orange = Book
>>says=20 so.
>>OB 9.3.2
>>Short/Phoney/Strong and Either/0r = clubs are=20 considered conventional.
>>Prepared Clubs (at least 3 cards) = are=20 considered natural.(except for
>>alerting)
>>So are = you asking=20 "is it" or are you asking "should it = be"?
>>Anne

>Maybe the=20 question should not be "Is 1C natural?" (no), but "Should 1C
>be = treated=20 as natural for convention regulations?"
>Dutch regulations treat = this 1C=20 indeed as natural, but apparently this
>is not the case=20 everywhere.

    = The WBF reg=20 depends on whether it is natural, which is why I am asking.
 
    If the Dutch = authorities have=20 laid down the answer [as the English/Welsh authorities have] then there = is no=20 problem, of course.
 
Cheers
--
David=20 Stevenson          &nbs= p;            = ;     =20 <bluejak666@hotmail.com>
= Liverpool,=20 England,=20 UK            = ;            =   =20 <bridge@blakjak.com>
Now in=20 Maastricht, Netherlands
Copy both eddresses=20 please           &= nbsp;  =20 Web: http://blakjak.com
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C01277.130ED040-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 20:03:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UA2TW29988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:02:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe46.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7UA2Ot29984 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:02:16 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [195.64.60.246] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:02:25 +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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2000 10:02:16.0710 (UTC) FILETIME=[608D1A60:01C01269] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> Is the 1C opening natural? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Given that the 1C opening can be passed - it shows a willingness to play there - and therefore is not conventional as defined by TFLB. Regards, Fearghal O'Boyle ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry, that argument is not good enough. You can pass a Multi 2D opener: that does not make the Multi natural. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Maastricht, Netherlands [currently] Email both eddresses please http://blakjak.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 Wed Aug 30 20:51:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UAnJc00018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:49:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7UAnBt00014 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:49:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:49:06 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:48:32 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > The WBF reg depends on whether it is natural, which is why I am asking. > > If the Dutch authorities have laid down the answer [as the English/Welsh >authorities have] then there is no problem, of course. How about this: 1C on a doubleton is natural if it is treated within the system as an opening showing clubs, and is not natural otherwise. In a fivecard major system, 1C normally promises four clubs (apart from those few rare cases), and is treated as such within the system (partner may pass, for example). Therefore the 1C-opening is natural. If the 1C-opening is forcing, so that partner must e.g. bid 1D with a weak hand, then the 1C-opening should be considered not natural, I think. So in my opinion, whether 1C on a doubleton is natural or not depends on how it is treated in the system. -- 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 Aug 30 21:59:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UBwje00050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:58:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7UBwdt00046 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:58:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e7UBwYa48001 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:58:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000830075320.00b0a500@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:58:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:49 PM 8/29/00, richard.hills wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >"Not in the ACBL, which has decreed that for an opening 1-bid in a suit to >be natural, it must promise at least a 4-card suit if a major or a 3-card >suit if a minor." > >This regulation of the ACBL is reminiscent of its notorious Marty Bergen >rule. Agreed. Also of its suppression of less-than-10-HCP 1NT openers, and a variety of other such regulations over the years. >Opening a major with a three card suit is not conventional according to >Law, and therefore not subject to restriction by the ACBL. Somebody needs to explain this to the ACBL. But they have a long history of regulating calls that are arguably not subject to SO regulation under the laws. >Will a future ACBL regulation require a 5-card suit for 1H or 1S to be >legal? :-) That smiley might be an overbid; it could happen. Right now the ACBL is rumored to be considering making four-card major openings alertable. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 22:13:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UCDQ200115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:13:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7UCDLt00111 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:13:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za091181 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:13:58 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-181.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.181]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Home-Grown-MailRouter V2.9b 17/2204468); 30 Aug 2000 22:13:57 Message-ID: <007d01c0121e$f3df7240$b5e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:09:30 +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 Martin Sinot wrote: >How about this: >1C on a doubleton is natural if it is treated within the system >as an opening showing clubs, and is not natural otherwise. Good intentions, but IMO your wording doesn't function well. A Precision Club "is treated within the system as an opening showing clubs", and also as an opening showing diamonds, hearts, spades etc, for example. I think that the problem lies in that pesky "three cards or more" in the definition of Convention in the Laws. Did I write "pesky"? Change that to "inappropriate" or "inadequately planned". Another possible definition: A bid is natural if it either shows four or more cards in the bid suit or denies five plus cards in any other suit or both. This includes 1C on a 4=4=4=1 shape. Not so silly IMO. Neat for those who play Standard with 5M, 5+D, 1+C. It makes a canape 1D on a 5=1=4=3 natural, but a canape 1D on a 6=1=3=3 or 5=2=3=3 becomes artificial. This seems reasonable to me. It traps the Precision 1D which may have five clubs - OK. It makes a 1H opening on "5+hearts or various balanced shapes" natural, which at present is only a theoretical disadvantage but when the Youthful Set get to work, may become a practical disadvantage. But is that any worse than the current bizarre situation (see below)? Or we could change the definition to: "A bid of a minor suit is natural if it either shows four or more cards in the bid suit or denies five plus cards in another suit or both. A bid of a major suit is natural if it shows four or more cards in the bid suit." We may then have to define majors and minors somewhere too. The problem IMO is that 1C on a doubleton is in reality just as artificial as 1H on a doubleton. However 1C on a doubleton has become sufficiently commonplace that we like to fudge our thinking into regarding it as natural rather than common, when it actually is the latter. So we need to fudge our definition of Natural, as I have tried to do above, or suffer the consequence which is that the WBF Systems Policy breaks down as it did at the European Juniors in Antalya with the "Dutch special-exemption case" which Ton and David Burn discussed on BLML about a month ago. The definitions of Natural, Artificial and Convention in the Bridge Encyclopedia are so unhelpful that they're not worth quoting, in case someone wondered. Peter Gill. (my idea is just a spur-of-the-moment thing, which might lead via someone's lateral thinking to a workable definition). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 22:13:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UCDoJ00128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:13:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7UCDit00124 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:13:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.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 e7UCDdQ49762 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:13:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20000830080432.00b0f6e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:14:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-Reply-To: <043e01c01222$cb4293e0$35df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:37 PM 8/29/00, Peter wrote: >The WBF Systems Policy, at >http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/bib/b7/wbfsystemspolicy/definitions.asp >defines Natural as "a call or play that is not a convention (as >defined in the Laws)" > >The Laws define Convention as: >"A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning >other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or >in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or >length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement >as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." > >Mmm, the bit in brackets seems to doom this 1C Opener >to be a Convention and thus not natural. Quel dommage. I don't agree. The law says "a call that... conveys a meaning other than willingness to play... or length...". Thus either is sufficient; if a call shows a willingness to play, it is not conventional even if it doesn't show length. >Only "seems to" - the first part of that definition is a bit of a >mouthful - I suppose you could argue that a 2+ 1C is natural >if it is not forcing and shows some desire to play there (the >"willingness to play there" doesn't have to be a sensible or >logical willingness, does it?). This requires clear thinking >and logical interpretaion. David Burn where are you? What >a pity that you're currently preoccupied with "leading the >Open Olympiad field after 6 rounds" - or not such a pity to >English BLMLers. :-)) It would be nice if it got clear thinking and logical interpretation, but all it requires to be a fact of real life in an SO's jurisdiction is interpretation, logical or not, accompanied by thinking or not. >Nonetheless, the recent BLML thread in which David Burn >described July's WBF ruling about BSC overcalls over a >2+ 1C Opener is highly relevant. That Antalya case may well >have created a precedent for the WBF to follow, i.e 1C is >to be treated as natural even if the Rules say that it isn't. > >So - at WBF level - the answer is: who knows? Certainly not me. > >By the way, I thought "European Standard" was that with >18-19 HCP and any 4333 or 4432 shape, one always >opens 1C, but with 12-14 balanced, one opens 1D with >4+D's else 1C (meaning that 1C is 4=4=3=2 if 12-14 HCP, >but may be any 4432 if 18-19 HCP). Would a European >tell me if this is correct? (This point caused some difficulties >for at least two non-Europeans who had to play "European >Standard" in the Generali Individual in Greece earlier this year.) > >Referring to a couple of specific examples: >- if 1C is played "Bertens-Nab style" i.e. 2+ and forcing, then >the desire to play 1C is not there and it is clearly not natural IMO. >- if 1C is played "Maas-Ramondt style" i.e not specified as forcing >on their CC, but nonetheless with a 0+ 1D response, then it's less >clear but probably not natural. >- if 1C is 2+ but not at all forcing, as played by many pairs in the >Olympiad, then I think (without great conviction) that it probably >is natural (but barely so) according to the WBF definition. I'd call the last natural; the others not. If responder will pass 1C with the same type of hands with which he would pass 1D, 1H or 1S, that would seem to qualify as "willingness to play". Indeed, it's hard to think of any stronger test that makes any sense. >A simple question with, of necessity, a complex answer, IMO. One deserving of a complex answer, perhaps, but not one which requires one for implementation. >At Australian level, the answer is: it's irrelevant to our >regulations here, thank goodness. I suspect Peter means irrelevant *under* Australian regulations. But its relevance to Australians remains; it is determinative of what their SO *could* do if it chose, whatever thay may do now. 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 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 30 23:59:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UDwim00210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:58:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp9.xs4all.nl (smtp9.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7UDwbt00205 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:58:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from woek (dc2-modem1346.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.133.66]) by smtp9.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA28202 for ; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:58:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004b01c0128a$4bf7ed20$42856dc2@xs4all.nl> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:56:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0129A.DBF05C40" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0129A.DBF05C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >> Is the 1C opening natural? > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Given that the 1C opening can be passed - it shows a willingness to = play > there - and therefore is not conventional as defined by TFLB. > > Regards, > Fearghal O'Boyle > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ David Stevensson wrote: > Sorry, that argument is not good enough. You can pass a Multi 2D opener: > that does not make the Multi natural. One will only pass a Multi 2D opener with lots of diamonds. One will pass EVERY hand on 1C with less say 4/5 HCP in a 5542 = structure. A huge difference. Kees van der Weijden. ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0129A.DBF05C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >>    Is the 1C opening=20 natural?
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Given = that the=20 1C  opening can be passed - it shows a willingness to play
> = there -=20 and therefore is not conventional as defined by TFLB.
>
>=20 Regards,
> Fearghal O'Boyle
>=20 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 David Stevensson=20 wrote:

>   Sorry, that argument is not good = enough. =20 You can pass a Multi 2D
opener:
> that does not make the Multi=20 natural.

One will only pass a Multi 2D opener with lots of=20 diamonds.
One will pass EVERY hand on 1C with less say 4/5 HCP in a = 5542=20 structure.
A huge difference.

Kees van der=20 Weijden.
------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C0129A.DBF05C40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 31 01:07:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UF6UV00244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:06:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e7UF6Nt00240 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:06:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27393; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:05:22 -0700 Message-Id: <200008301505.IAA27393@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:22:06 PDT." Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:05:20 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > It's a while since I said this: > > "I totally fail to comprehend how a nation that can land men on the moon > and bring them back can also believe that the best way to describe a > balanced 19 point hand is to open a small doubleton" Which nation are you talking about? Belgium, or Holland? :-) FWIW, while I tend to agree with you bridge-wise, I don't think you can pin this belief on the nation that sent men to the moon. Over here, it's pretty standard to open 1D with 4=4=3=2; there are partnerships who open 1C with that pattern, but probably no more than 1% of the players I've run into. Then again, I can't figure out why we believe the best way to describe AQJ3 KQ5 AK2 432 is by opening in the 4-3-2 suit. -- 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 Aug 31 03:34:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7UHXsd00349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:33:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu03.email.msn.com [207.46.181.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7UHXlt00345 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 03:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.28.72.39 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:32:59 -0700 Message-ID: <09b801c012a7$bbc40cc0$3517173f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:28:36 -0700 Organization: his wit's end MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_09B5_01C0126D.0E836040" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_09B5_01C0126D.0E836040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fred Gittleman posted in r.g.b. regarding this appeal from = Maastrict--and its seemingly inexplicable committee decision. http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Maastricht.00/Bulletins/0830/page4.htm Any opinions? Any ideas? Any inside information? I'm = certainly baffled. Chris ------=_NextPart_000_09B5_01C0126D.0E836040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
    Fred Gittleman posted in r.g.b. regarding this = appeal=20 from Maastrict--and its seemingly inexplicable committee decision.
 
http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Maastricht.00/Bulletins/0830/page4.htm
 
 
        Any opinions?  Any = ideas? =20 Any inside information?  I'm certainly baffled.
 
            =    =20         Chris
------=_NextPart_000_09B5_01C0126D.0E836040-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 31 07:12:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7ULBRn00429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:11:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.211.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7ULBJt00425 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:11:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 48579 invoked for bounce); 30 Aug 2000 21:11:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.228) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 30 Aug 2000 21:11:14 -0000 Message-ID: <01cf01c012c7$0f444c60$e4291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "BLML" References: <09b801c012a7$bbc40cc0$3517173f@uymfdlvk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:12:34 +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 "Chris Pisarra" wrote: > Fred Gittleman posted in r.g.b. regarding > this appeal from Maastrict--and its seemingly > inexplicable committee decision. > http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Maastricht.00/Bulletins/0830/page4.htm > Any opinions? I fully agree with Fred that the only possible decisions would have been either "result stands" or "6D down 1". > Any ideas? We can haunt Herman and Grattan for years about this "We were to lazy to decide whether 6D down one was likely/at all likely, so we rolled the dice and came up with a random adjustment, and we also forgot to award Chemla/Levy with a PP" decision. 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 Aug 31 20:37:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VAaaf00716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:36:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7VAaTt00712 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:36:30 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:36:15 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:36:11 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: EXT Chris Pisarra [mailto:Pisarra@msn.com] Sent: 30. August 2000 20:29 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Maastrict Appeal #3 Fred Gittleman posted in r.g.b. regarding this appeal from Maastrict--and its seemingly inexplicable committee decision. http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Maastricht.00/Bulletins/0830/page4.htm Any opinions? Any ideas? Any inside information? I'm certainly baffled. Chris "The Committee did not want to quantify this chance, and chose to express their views into imps directly." What is that supposed to mean? Where did 7IMPs score come from? Isn't it "quantifying a chance" anyway? To know what chance the comittee did assign to 6D going down you have to do is to solve an equation x% * 11IMP + (100% - x%) * (-11IMP) = 7IMP where x - the chance of 6D making You'll get x=18/22, i.e.ca.81,82%. So the Committee did quantify this chance though they don't even seem to realize that. Why just simply say we think that the chance of 6D going down is 20% when you can choose instead "We, the bridge Gods think you should get 7IMPs for this board". Grattan and Herman might take offence but I think this ruling is a classical example that too much power is demoralizing. I think it should be written in TFLB (or Code of Practice, whatever) that the Appeals Committee shouldn't be able to make a ruling the way they did. The procedure might look like this (this just a draft for the MI cases) 1. Was there MI? If no then result stands. 2. If it was that work out all "at all probable" ways the bidding and the play might go. 3. Assign the probabilities to the each of them. 4. Assign the weighted score. The AC should be forced to publish the bidding/play scenarios and the assigned probabilities. It shouldn't have the power to "express its view in IMPs directly". Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 31 21:17:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VBEvB00745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:14:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7VBEqt00741 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:14:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:14:44 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:14:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is 1C natural? Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:14:43 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2000 11:14:44.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA46DC30:01C0133C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Stevenson" >To: "BLML" >Subject: [BLML] Is 1C natural? >Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:02:25 +0200 > > >> Is the 1C opening natural? > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Given that the 1C opening can be passed - it shows a willingness to play >there - and therefore is not conventional as defined by TFLB. > >Regards, >Fearghal O'Boyle >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Sorry, that argument is not good enough. You can pass a Multi 2D >opener: >that does not make the Multi natural. > I think you're being a bit dismissive: You *can* pass a multi, but you're not expected to. Opening a multi doesn't show a willingness to play in two diamonds: If it goes P-P-P everyone looks very surprised except responder with his seven small diamonds and out. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.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 Aug 31 22:58:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e7VCucQ00870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:56:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esebh01nok.ntc.nokia.com [131.228.118.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7VCuWt00866 for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:56:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by esebh01nok with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) id ; Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:54:59 +0300 Message-ID: From: Ext-Konrad.Ciborowski@nokia.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] A question about Tanzania Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:54:48 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On the Maastricht oficial web site http://www.bridgeolympiad.nl/results.html there is a mysterious score Poland-Tanzania 18:0 (??:?? in imps) Anybody knows what happened? Did the Tanzanian team withdraw? Will all other teams to play against Tanazania receive 18 VPs? Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/